United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Columbia Ecological Services Field Office
101 Park DeVille Drive, Suite A
Columbia, Missouri 65203-0007

Phone: (573) 234-2132 Fax: (573) 234-2181

December 11, 2003

Mr. William Sigler ws
Senior Environmental Scientist ‘
HDR Engineering, Inc.

8404 Indian Hills Drive

Omaha, NE 68114-4098

Dear Mr. Sigler:

Please refer to your November 19, 2003, letter, requesting information on federally listed species
that may occur in the vicinity of the proposed Union Pacific Railroad bridge across the Osage
River in Cole County, Missouri. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has reviewed your letter
and submits these comments under the authority of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16
U.S.C. 661 et seq.), and the Endangered Species Act of 1973, (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543), as
amended.

The following federally listed species may occur in the project area:

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), Threatened — Bald eagles are common migrants and
winter residents throughout the state and are uncommon breeders along some of the major rivers
and larger reservoirs in the state. During winter, they congregate near rivers and reservoirs with
open water and often near large concentrations of waterfowl. Wintering eagles usually occupy
river habitats between.November 15 and March 1, and use large diameter riparian tree species as
daytime perches and night roosts. They usually perch within a riparian corridor or along lake
shores and prefer areas with limited human activity. At night, wintering bald eagles may
congregate at communal roosts and will travel as much as 20 kilometers (12 miles) from feeding
areas to a roost site. The period January 1 to March 1 is important for initiating nesting activity;
March 1 to May 15 is the most critical time for incubation and rearing of young.

Bald eagles are known to prefer trees greater than 11 inches dbh and within 100 to 600 feet of
water for perching sites. Eagles also tend to roost on the tallest trees (greater than 63 feet above
ground level), Cottonwood (Populus deltoides) and sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) are often
selected over other trees for perching and roosting. We recommend the project be designed to
avoid the loss of trees matching these criteria.



ol
ied

“Ecologi ] cialists, Inc

1417 Hoff Industrial Drive ¢ O'Fallon, MO 63368
Phone: 636.281.1982 ¢ Fax: 636.281.0973 5
care

www.ceolagicalspecialiats.cam

25 May 2004

Kelly Farrell

HDR Engineering, Inc.
8404 Indian Hills Drive
Omaha, NE 68114-4098

Dear Kelly:

Ecological Specialists, Inc. has completed the unionid mussel survey of the Osage River at River Mile 5.3
for the railroad bridge construction study. Only 63 live unionids, but 14 species were collected:

Species Total Live
Amblema plicata 4
Lampsilis cardium
Lampsilis siliquoidea
Lasmigona c. complanata
Leptodea fragilis
Ligumia recta
Megalonaias nervosa
Obliquaria reflexa
Potamilus alatus
Pyganodon grandis
Quadrula metanevra
Quadrula p. pustulosa
Quadrula quadrula
Truncilla truncata

Total Live

Number of Species

EQlon one awonana

Six of the 63 individuals were Ligumia recta (a Missouri species of Special Concern).

A total of 73 samples were collected; approximately five samples per 10m X 75m section. However only
two samples were collected upstream on the east bank because of dangerous diving conditions caused by
railroad debris. Each sample was a 5min search by a diver and covered approximately 20m”. See
attached map figure.

Although species richness was high, unionids were scattered throughout the study area. This suggests
random colonization of transient mussels from upstream beds. Many mussels were collected next to

boulders and in small, stable pockets of substrate. Therefore, the mussels in the area were most likely



LOWER MISSOURI RIVER, L.L.C.
16640 CHESTERFIELD GROVE ROAD, SUITE 200
CHESTERFIELD, MO 63005

March 18, 2004

Ms. Kelly J. Farrell

HDR

8404 Indian Hills Drive ca -
Omaha, NE 68114-4098

Re: Required Wetland Mitigation
UPRR Osage River Bridge Project

Dear Ms. Farrell:

We understand that the UPRR Osage River Bridge Project is required to provide 1.0 acres (or 1.0 credits)
from a wetland mitigation bank as a requirement of the current 404 Permit application. We believe that -
the Lower Missouri River Mitigation Bank is a viable source of mitigation for the project's mitigation
requirement. The 1.0 credit will cost $60,000.00. A check can be made out to Lower Missouri River,
L.L.C. and mailed to my attention at the address above.

If you have any technical questions or comments regarding the bank specifications, please call Scott
Harding at (636) 296-6111 ext.22.

Sincerely,
Kenneth Stricker
Lower Missouri River, L.L.C.

Ce: Mr. Scott Harding


B6EL YOOR ej UND abeso ‘S19 AjUNCD e109 ‘SIGS :8auN0S
ayeag

: re)
00z eunr :a1eq 1 40 | 804s | eax ayowv
a 21419Vd NOINN

GVOUTIVE 31419Vd NOINN

AS NOLLVIIIddVv .

324 008 0 008

S3ILNNOD 3109/49vVSO
Arepunog |9oueg
eary Apmig (oT) |

RINOSSIN ‘ALID 3DVSO YVAN
puabe7 |

¢"s SW WaATE
390INa NAAN JOVSO GasOdOud

“SIeqHO Jeuer 3 49}5G9M

_ a E ueBiow preuog:

esting jeuia 9 wen ‘| sBpipues eisseg 9 Ueyje07 eulL

SOW SLAW Jay}eyos sewer

ume peu | be Wosuyor eUeIq g PAOL-j

i uosuyor euelg 9 PAO|S x4 uosuyor euelg 9 PAO
| Jejpueyo ueer t umouyun
} Bujuues yueouy, ueWeH | tz | SOINIS USjaH B 687
y lesjeyy Ayjou0g 8 ploeH 02 UMOUxUN)

: “i yso]yosng jeiveq 6b Jayelyog seuier

a oe Uosuyor euelq 9 PAO[ gb UMOoUXUN

i a a, umouyun | 2b yesued epuly 9 pleleg

ul ‘seyoeg AQUeN 9 We; OL ddod epos
UOLPIy UOJEYS *B JOUUEYD HEqory Sb Jouuenig e1UIBIIA 9 Ned

y Loe ‘OWEN SUMO FEC] SUIeN SUMO,



APPENDIX 1
Proposed Bridge Plans


USFWS. 2000b. News Release: First Reproduction of Pallid Sturgeon in Lower
Missouri River in Decades is Confirmed by Fish and Wildlife Service. 9 February
2000. http://news.fws.gov/NewsReleases/R9/A11C3D2B-AC20-11D4-
A179009027B6B5D3.html. Retrieved 16 December 2003.

USFWS. 2000c. Biological Opinion on the Operation of the Missouri River Main Stem
Reservoir System, Operation and Maintenance of the Missouri River Bank
Stabilization and Navigation Project, and Operation of the Kansas River
Reservoir System. Region 6, US Fish and Wildlife Service.

USFWS. 2001. Pallid Sturgeon, Scaphirhynchus albus. La Crosse Fishery Resources
Office. Rev. 2 May.

USFWS. 2002. News Release: Searching for the Elusive Pallid Sturgeon.
16 January 2002. http://news.fws.gov/NewsReleases/R3/9ACD4A7B-11E7-
4A4D-BODDFA16D1C65609.html. Retrieved 30 October 2003.

USFWS. 2003a. Species Profile for Bald Eagle.
https://ecos.fws.gov/species_profile/SpeciesProfile?spcode=B008. Retrieved
5 November 2003.

USFWS. 2003b. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2003 Amendment to the 2000
Biological Opinion on the Operation of the Missouri River Main Stem Reservoir
System, Operation and Maintenance of the Missouri River Bank Stabilization and
Navigation Project, and Operation of the Kansas River Reservoir System. Region
6, US Fish and Wildlife Service.

USFWS. 2003c. Letter to William Sigler. 11 December 2003. Threatened and
Endangered Species Informal Consultation. HDR Engineering, Inc. Omaha, NE.

USFWS. 2004. Letter to Kelly Farrell. 16 June. 2004. Threatened and Endangered
Species Informal Consultation. HDR Engineering, Inc. Omaha, NE.

‘Osage River Bridge 9/21/2004
Biological Assessment


United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Columbia Ecological Services Field Office
101 Park DeVille Drive, Suite A
Columbia, Missouri 65203-0057
Phone: (573) 234-2132 Fax: (573) 234-2181

October 19, 2004 F] 1 pm
a

Mr. Roger K. Wiebusch

Bridge Administrator

U.S. Coast Guard — Eighth District
1222 Spruce Street

St. Louis, Missouri 63103-2832

Dear Mr. Wiebusch:

Please refer to your September 21, 2004, letter and accompanying Biological Assessment
(BA) regarding the Proposed Railroad Companion Bridge, Mile 5.49, Osage River,
Osage and Cole Counties, Missouri. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has
reviewed that information and submits the following comments pursuant to the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

The BA describes the effects of the proposed bridge construction adjacent to an existing
railroad bridge near the mouth of the Osage River. The BA does not include the federally
endangered Indiana bat based on an interagency site visit in January 2004. At that time,
the USCG and the applicant limited their effects discussion to the proposed construction
site because the details of removing the existing bridge at Boonville had not been
determined. Currently those activities are undergoing review through a Clean Water act
Section 404 permitting process, and have not been finalized. When the applicant has
decided on a course of action, the Service will review the Corps determination of the
effects of that action on the endangered pallid sturgeon, bald eagle, and Indiana bat which
are likely to occur in and around the Boonville site. Therefore, our comments below are
limited to the Osage construction site.

Although the BA notes that nesting bald eagle are uncommon in Missouri, each year
more nests are found, including along the Missouri River. In fact, there is an eagle nest
just downstream of the Boonville site near the Franklin Island Conservation Area.
Nonetheless, the Service believes that the proposed surveys, operational windows and
further consultation with the Service would result in no adverse effects to eagles if they
are in the project area. The nesting period for bald eagles in Missouri lasts through June,
thus underscoring the importance of pre-construction nest surveys to avoid adverse
effects.


\
1
4

Ecological Specialists, Inc.

1417 Hoff Industrial Drive +» O'Fallon, MO 63366

Voice: 636.281.1982 + Fax: 636.281.0973
ee www.ecologicalspecialists.com.
July 9, 2004 °
Kelly Ferrell
Environmental Scientist .
HDR Engineering ms

8404 Indian Hills Drive
Omaha, NE 68114-4098

Dear Kelly:

Ecological Specialists, Inc. has completed the unionid and depth mapping survey of the Osage River
below the Union Pacific Railroad Bridge at Osage River Mile 5.2. A dive crew surveyed this area of the
river for two days to determine the presence of unionids and to locate a navigation route that would have
minimal impact on habitat and minimize scouring. The crew recorded coordinates of areas (using GPS)
where the depth was <1Oft and therefore may be affected by barge movement. There are three areas
where the navigation route crosses over shallow areas. Habitat was surveyed in these areas using 50m
transects to determine substrate composition, depths, and unionid abundance. Only seven live unionids
of four common species (Quadrula pustulosa, Quadrula quadrula, Obliquaria reflexa, and Megalonaias

nervosa) were collected from a total of 60 samples along 12 transects.

Attached is a map (Figures 1a and 1b) that shows navigable areas (>10ft) and areas that should be
avoided (<LOft). The navigable areas are mostly >15ft but at least 10ft. Three shallow crossing areas
are indicated where navigation over shallow areas was unavoidable. These areas were determined from
results of transect samples and indicate the best route to minimize disturbance of potentially good
habitat. Navigation points were created to aid in navigation. These points are marked on the maps,
numbered by side from downstream to upstream, and their coordinates are listed in Table 1. The route

maintains a minimum of 75m width to allow ample space for barge navigation.



BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
FOR
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD
OSAGE RIVER CROSSING, RIVER MILE 5.49, NEAR THE TOWN OF OSAGE
CITY, MISSOURI, OSAGE AND COLE COUNTIES, MISSOURI

Introduction

This Biological Assessment (BA) has been prepared in support of the Union Pacific
Railroad’s (UPRR) application for a U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) Bridge Permit for the
construction of a single-track companion bridge adjacent to the existing UPRR bridge
over the Osage River at river mile 5.49. The project is currently in the Informal
Consultation phase of Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 Consultation with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). This BA has been developed as a part of the
USFWS consultation process.

1.1. Biological Assessment

A variety of large and small mammals and aquatic species can be expected to occur in the
Project vicinity. The USFWS identified five Federally-listed endangered or threatened
species: bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus, threatened), Indiana bat (Mytosis sodalist,
endangered), pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus, endangered), pink mucket
pearlymussel (Lampsilis abrupta, endangered), and scaleshell mussel (Leptodea
leptodon, endangered). In addition to listed species, the USFWS expressed concern
regarding impacts on any freshwater mussel beds that may be present within the project
area and impacts on lake and shovelnose sturgeon and paddlefish. The Missouri
Department of Conservation has identified the state-listed giant floater mussel
(Pyganodon grandis) and black sandshell mussel (Ligumia recta) as species that are
known to occur in the Osage River near the Project Area.

During a site visit on January 14, 2003, the USFWS stated that the Project Area did not
contain suitable habitat for the Indiana bat and surveys would not be required. Therefore,
the project would have no ‘effect on the Indiana bat and it is not included in the Biological
Assessment (BA).

1.1.1 Purpose of Biological Assessment

The purpose of this BA is to identify Federally listed species and habitat that could
support these species in the Study Area and to evaluate the potential impacts of
implementing one of the alternatives.

Section 7(C) of the ESA requires a Federal agency to prepare a BA to disclose effects of
a proposed action on threatened or endangered species. USFWS uses the BA to
determine if there is an effect on a species and to ensure that the proposed action does not
contribute toward the loss of viability of a listed species, contribute to a trend toward a
need for Federal listing, or jeopardize or adversely modify critical habitat of Federally
listed species.

Osage River Bridge 1 9/21/2004
Biological Assessment


water and frequently near concentrations of waterfowl. “Wintering eagles usually occupy
river habitats between November 15 and March 1, and... the period January 1 to March 1
is important for initiating nesting activity; March 1 to May 15 is the most critical time for
incubation and rearing of young’(USFWS, 2003c). The trees present in the Project Area
are not suitable for roosting or nesting, but may be used as perches for feeding. Bald
eagles tend to select cottonwood (Populus deltoides) and sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis) over other species of trees.

1.1.2.4. Effects of the Project

Direct Effects

There are no known bald eagle nests located within the Study Area. This Project would
not impact any bald eagle critical habitat. Tree removal in areas of previously
undisturbed habitat would impact the bald eagle by removing a narrow swath of trees to
construct temporary access roads for equipment to access the river and for the area
required for the approaches of the second mainline track. The removed trees may include
potential roosting trees; however, this impact would be minor due to the availability of
additional suitable habitat nearby.

Indirect Effects

Minor indirect impacts on the bald eagle would occur due to the removal of emergent
wetlands associated with the build alternatives.

Noise associated with construction activities may temporarily and indirectly affect bald
eagles near the site of the Project. Eagles that would normally roost in the general area
may choose different locations along the river to roost during construction but would
likely return to the area following the completion of construction. Roosting is a
temporary condition, and individual birds use a variety of trees in different locations
depending on the proximity of open water and other food sources. Overall train noise
levels would remain fairly constant as the number of trains passing through the area is
expected to remain constant.

Construction would temporarily impact fisheries in the Study Area, as many fish would
likely avoid the area because of the noise and water disturbances caused by construction.
However, bald eagles are also likely to avoid the area while construction is occurring, so
the impact of the temporary change in fishery resources is expected to be minimal.

Cumulative Effects

Overall, there will be a slight reduction in available habitat for the bald eagle. However,
the conservation measures described in Section 1.1.2.5 would minimize this loss and
reduce the impact on bald eagles to the extent practical.

Osage River Bridge 5 9/21/2004
Biological Assessment


at
a
cot
a

United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Columbia Ecological Services Field Office
101 Park DeVille Drive, Suite A
Columbia, Missouri 65203-0007
Phone: (573) 234-2132 Fax: (573) 234-2181

June 16, 2004

Ms. Kelly Farrell

HDR Engineering, Inc.

8404 Indian Hills Drive
Omaha, Nebraska 68114-4098

Dear Ms. Farrell:

Please prefer to your recent email transmitting the May 24, 2004, report from Ecological
Specialists, Inc., that described results of their mussel surveys in and around the proposed UPRR
bridge project at approximately RM 5 along the Osage River, Cole County, Missouri. Those
surveys were conducted at our request to determine the potential occurrence of federally listed
mussels in the project area. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed that
information and offers the following comments pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973,
as amended (16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.),

The Service worked with Ecological Specialists, Inc., to develop the survey design and protocols
immediately following the April 27, 2004 interagency meeting in Jefferson City. The mussel
report documented relatively high species richness, yet relatively low unionid densities.. The
author attributed the low densities to the instability of the river bottom in this area. Using a
regression analysis to predict the potential of collecting additional species, the author indicates
that additional sampling could possibly document an endangered mussel, but it is unlikely that
the project would affect more than a couple of mussels, if they are there. Given the marginal
habitat in this area, it is likely some of the mussels may have originated upstream and were
washed down during high water events. Therefore we believe the mussel report adequately
characterizes the unionid fauna in the project are. In addition, we concur with the general
conclusion of the author, i.e., that the proposed work is not likely to adversely affect federally
listed mussel species. As project details are further refined, we hope to work with the applicant
and agencies to explore opportunities to improve mussel habitat in the area, if possible,
consistent with their proposed bridge replacement.


|
|
Ui

United States Department of Agriculture USDA
O NRCS Natural Resources
i Conservation Service

Area Office, 1911 Boggs Creek Road, Jefferson City, Missouri 65101

February 11, 2004

Ms. Kelly J. Farrell

* Environmental Scientist

HDR One Company
8404 Indian Hills Drive
Omaha, NE 68114-4098

Dear Ms. Farrell, aan

Phone: 573 761-3105 Ext. 5

s

Attached is the completed CPA-106 form per your request for a Farmland Conversion Impact Rating for a
track realignment and bridge construction on the Union Pacific Railroad near Osage City. As I read the
ArcView files you sent, there will be no farmland converted on the Cole County side of the bridge, so I
completed the evaluation only on the Osage County portion of the project. After you complete the form,

please return one copy for our records.
Please feel free to contact me if I can be of further assistance.
' ’
Cite
Keith Davis
Area Resource Soil Scientist

Cc: Shawn Anderson, District Conservationist, Linn
Gary VanDeVelde, District Conservationist, Jefferson City

‘The Natural Resources Conservation Service works in partnership with the American people
to conserve and sustain natural resources on private lands.

‘An Equal Opportunity Employer


Ecological Specialists, Inc.
1417 Hoff Industrial Dr. * O'Fallon, MO 63366 © Phone: 636.281.1982 ¢ Fax: 636.281.0973

washed in from upstream and only those that found a stable place to live remain in the area. A stable
unionid bed does not occur in the study area due to lack of substrate stability.

Regression analysis estimates that in the total survey area (estimated as 14,000m?) there are
approximately 560 animals of 20 species. An estimated 320 unionids of 18 species occur in the proposed
causeway footprint area (estimated at 8000m?). The following table shows actual and theoretical values

derived from regression analysis and average number of animals collected per sample (0.4 unionids/m?),

Sample Area
(m’) No. Live No. Species
Actual 1460 63 14
Theoretical 1250 50 12
2500 100 15
8000 320 18
14,000 ° 560 20
25,000 1000 22

Since additional species could occur in the study area, a few federally endangered Pink Muckets
(Lampsilis abrupta) could possibly be found with additional searching. Additional searches were not
possible at the time of this study due to sever thunderstorms. Therefore it is possible that dredging in
the proposed causeway area or constructing the proposed causeway in this area could impact a few of the
L. abrupta. However it is unlikely that dredging or causeway construction would affect more than a few
individual L. abrupta and therefore is not likely to impact the L. abrupta population in the Osage River.

Ifa relocation is deemed necessary, ESI suggests that only the dredging area or footprint of the
causeway should be considered due to the overall low density of the area, and that effort be limited to
recovery as many unionids as possible in a few days, focusing on areas around boulders and logs, and

patches of stable substrate.

The GPS mapping portion of the survey will be conducted as soon as river conditions permit. Please find
the attached invoice for the fieldwork and this report completed, and do not hesitate to call should you

have any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Eric Bos
Eric Belt
Aquatic Ecologist/GIS Technician



2. References

55 FR 36641-36647. September 6, 1990. Department of the Interior. Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Endangered Status for the
Pallid Sturgeon.

60 FR 36000-36010. July 12, 1995. Department of the Interior. Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule to Reclassify the Bald Eagle From
Endangered to Threatened in All of the Lower 48 States.

64 FR 36454-36464. July 6, 1999. Department of the Interior. Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Rule to Remove the Bald Eagle in the
Lower 48 States From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.

Duffy, Walter G., Charles R. Berry, and Kent D. Keenlyne. The Pallid Sturgeon.
Biology and Annotated Bibliography Through 1999. Brookings: South Dakota
State University, 1999,

MICRA, Inc. 1998. Inhabitance. _http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=inhabitance.
Retrieved 20 January 2004.

Missouri River Basin Association. Science-Based Questions from the Basin
Stakeholders: April 10, 2003. http:/Avww.mrba-missouri-river.com/Questions4-
03.htm. Retrieved 24 December 2003.

Nebraska Game and Parks Commission. Pallid and Lake Sturgeons. Nebraska’s
Threatened and Endangered Species. October 1993.

Platte River Endangered Species Partnership (PRESP). The Pallid Sturgeon.
http:/Avww.platteriver.org/backgr/sturg.htm. Retrieved 30 October 2003.

Texas Parks and Wildlife. Threatened and Endangered Species, Bald Eagle.
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/nature/endang/animals/birds/baldeagl.htm. Retrieved 5
November 2003.

USFWS. 1993. Recovery Plan for the Pallid Sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus).
Region 6, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

USFWS. 1995. Feature Series, The Pallid Sturgeon, a Missouri River “Dinosaur”
Mountain-Prairie Region, Vol. I, No.4. Retrieved 20 October 2003.

USFWS. 1998. Endangered Species Facts, Pallid Sturgeon. March 1998.
http://midwest.fws.gov/Endangered/fishes/palid_fc.html. Retrieved 20 October 2003.

USFWS. 1999, News Release: The Bald Eagle is Back! President Clinton Announces
Proposal to Remove Our National Symbol From Endangered Species List.

2 July 1999. http:/Avww.fws.gov/r9extaff/eaglejuly2.html. Retrieved
5 November 2003.

USFWS. 2000a. News Release: Endangered Sturgeon Found; Species Beginning
Recovery. 7 January 2000. http://mountain-
prairie. fws.gov/MissouriRiver/news releasebis.htm. Retrieved 16 December 2003.

Osage River Bridge 9/21/2004
Biological Assessment


1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION
1.1 Introduction

This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared in support of the Union Pacific Railroad
(UPRR) application for a Coast Guard Bridge Permit to construct a second railroad bridge adjacent
to the existing railroad bridge that crosses the Osage River at Mile 5.49, at Osage City, MO. The
UPRR and its consultant performed studies that identified and assessed the impacts of the
proposed action on the human environment. The results of these studies have been incorporated
into this EA and satisfy all applicable federal environmental control laws. The U.S. Coast Guard is
the lead federal agency for satisfying the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act.

1.1.2 Description of the Proposed Action

The proposed project would construct a new railroad bridge over the Osage River at mile 5.49, at
Osage City, Missouri, immediately downstream and adjacent to the existing UPRR bridge. The
construction of an additional 0.49 miles of track will upgrade UPRR’s rail system to a double-
track through the Jefferson City Subdivision, which includes the Osage River Bridge. The
proposed bridge would parallel the existing bridge to create a second mainline track. The
proposed bridge would consist of three 300+-foot spans, one 252-foot span, and one 69-foot span.
The existing bridge will be altered by pushing back the western abutment and replacing a 50-foot
span with spans approximately 36 and 68 feet in length and construction of a pier. The proposed
substructures to support the new bridge would be new-drilled shaft foundations with cast-in-place
concrete columns and caps. See Appendix 1 for plans of the proposed Osage River Bridge.

In addition to the construction of the Osage River Bridge, the second mainline track approaches
need to be constructed to complete the elimination of a pinch point. As a result of the second
mainline track Osage County Road-415 which runs parallel to the existing track will be
reconstructed. UPRR will construct a road from the south side of the #2 main track from CR-
415 west to the private road to where it crosses the main tracks again. For farming operations to
have access without crossing the main tracks, UPRR will construct a roadway under the Osage
River Bridge and construct a new roadway on the north side of #1 main track up to the point
where the CR-415 had crossed the railroad tracks to allow the farmer a roadway and field access.
The portion of CR-415 north of the existing tracks will be abandoned.

1.1.3 Statement of Need for the Proposed Action

The existing Osage River Bridge is a single track railroad bridge constructed in 1925. UPRR has
been enhancing their rail system and upgrading the Jefferson City Subdivision, which includes
the Osage River Bridge, from single-track to double-track. UPRR plans to upgrade the Osage
River Bridge segment as well as the only other remaining single-track segment to double-track in
order to complete a more efficient route through Missouri. The segment of track across the
Osage River is 0.49 miles long and acts as a pinch point for train traffic across Missouri. This
segment of track is part of a critical freight route carrying over 110,000,000 gross tons of freight

Osage River Bridge 2 12/12/2007
Environmental Assessment


[Ro ee completa commniny parait offi Floodplain Development Permit No.. |

ENGINEERING "NO-RISE” CERTIFICATION

Community: County:__ CEac& State:MO
Union Pacific Railroad Company
Applicant:_{Mark McCune) Date03/12/04 |Engineer:
1416 Dodge Street, Room 940 4435 Main Street
Address:__Omaha, NE 68179 Address:___Kansas City, MO 64111-1860
, Telephone:__(402) 271-5194 Telephone:_(816) 360-2740
SITE DATA:

1. Location: _NW___1v4;__NE_ 1; Section_21; Range_10W_; Township:_44N

Street Address:,

2. Panel(s) No. of NFIP map(s) affected:__ 290268 0075

3. Type of development: Filling Grading. Excavation, Minor Improv,
Substantial-Improv. . New Construction__X Other.

4. Description of Development:_Construction of a second mainline bridge, 1,235 feet
in length, located 45 feet downstream of existing structure.

5. Name of flooding source:, Osage River

COMMENTS: See Attached Memo

This is to certify that I am a duly qualified engineer licensed to practice in the Stateof_ MQ. It is to
further certify that the attached technical data supports the fact that the proposed development described
above will not create any increase to the 100-year elevations on said flooding source above at published cross
sections in the Flood Insurance Study for the above community dated. 1 Fe. |99O and. will not create
any increase to the 100-year flood elevations at unpublished cross-section in the vicinity a
development.

Name: dohn K. Denlinger
Signature: fA. K. by Date: 15 Maret Zoo
Title:__SR- F ater peeneces” At ENGINES. License No.: Zan lao7e3S,

R7-No Rise "12-02-03


el
al

Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), Endangered — From late fall through winter Indiana bats in
Missouri hibernate in caves in the Ozarks and Ozark Border Natural Divisions. During the
spring and summer, Indiana bats utilize living, injured (e.g. split trunks and broken limbs from
lightening strikes or wind), dead or dying trees for roosting throughout the state. Indiana bat
roost trees tend to be greater than 9 inches diameter at breast height (dbh) (optimally;greater than
20 inches dbh) with loose or exfoliating bark. Most important are structural characteristics that
provide adequate space for bats to roost.

Preferred roost sites are located in forest openings, at the forest edge, or where the overstory
canopy allows some sunlight exposure to the roost tree, which is usually within 0.6 miles of
water. Indiana bats forage for flying insects (particularly moths) in and around the tree canopy
of floodplain, riparian, and upland forests. If trees suitable for use by Indiana bats are to be
removed for the proposed project, they must be removed between October 1" and March 30" to
avoid the potential injury or death to roosting individuals and matemity colonies. If it is not
feasible to schedule tree removal during this period, the Service requires a survey, to determine
the presence or absence of Indiana bats, be conducted by a qualified biologist. Survey efforts
should include using a combination of mist nets and bat detection devices [e.g., “Anabat” (©
Titley Electronics, Ballina, New South Wales, Australia)}. If it is determined that a survey for
Indiana bats is needed, please contact the Missouri Ecological Services Field Office to obtain
specific information regarding survey protocol. If surveys indicate that Indiana bats are using
trees proposed to be removed during their breeding season (April 1 to September 30) further
consultation with the Service under section 7 of the Act will be required.

Pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus), Endangered- The pallid sturgeon’s range is primarily
the Missouri River and the Mississippi River downstream of its confluence with the Missouri
River. Limited data is available concerning preferred habitats in Missouri, but the species has
been captured in tributary mouths, over sandbars, along main channel borders, and in deep holes
(in winter) in the Missouri River. Small sturgeon have been captured in off-channel backwaters.

Pink mucket pearlymussel (Lampsilis abrupta), Endangered - The pink mucket pearlymussel
is found in medium to large rivers, in habitats ranging from silt to boulders, rubble, gravel and
sand substrates in moderate to fast-flowing water, at depths ranging from 0.5 to 8.0 meters. The
pink mucket occurs in the Black River in Wayne and Butler counties; the Little Black River in
Ripley County; the Meramec River from the Bourbeuse River confluence downstream to the
Highway 231 bridge in Franklin, Jefferson and St. Louis counties; the Big River in Jefferson
County; the Gasconade River in Maries, Osage and Gasconade counties; the Osage River
downstream of Bagnell Dam to its confluence with the Missouri River; and the Sac River in
Cedar County. Increases in turbidity and suspended sediments cause nutritional stress and
mortality in the pink mucket pearl ymussel.

Scaleshell mussel (Leptodea leptodon), Endangered — The scaleshell mussel occurs in small to
large streams from riffles in stable substrates consisting of gravel, cobble, boulder, and
occasionally mud or sand. Most extant populations are restricted to river stretches with stable
channels that have maintained relatively good water quality. Additionally, scaleshell is usually
found in association with a high diversity of other freshwater mussels. Like most other native


MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION

Headquarters |
2901 West ‘Truman Boulevard, P.O. Box 180, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102-0180
Telephone: 573/751-4115 & Missouri Relay Center: 1-800-735-2966 (TDD)

JOHN D. HOSKINS, Director

| March 9, 2004

Ms. Kelly J. Farrell ra
cyt Environmental Scientist

of HDR

8404 Indian Hills Drive

Omaha, Nebraska 68114-4098

Dear Ms. Farrell:

Subject: Railroad Bridge Construction —- Osage River, Osage County, Missouri

| enjoyed meeting with you to discuss the proposed railroad bridge construction project
across the Osage River at river mile 5.3 near Osage City, Missouri. At your request, |
have reviewed Department records and information on sensitive species or
communities for this location.

A review of our records shows that sensitive species and communities are known to
exist at and near the above-referenced site. Specifically, a mussel bed containing the
State listed giant floater mussel, the black sandshell mussel, the federally endangered
scaleshell mussel, and the federally endangered pink mucket mussel are known to
occur in the Osage River near the proposed construction site. Please be advised that
this is not a site clearance letter. Rather, this letter provides an indication of whether or
Not sensitive resources are known to be (or are likely to be) located close to the
Proposed project.

Incorporating information from our Heritage Database into project plans is an important
. step that can help reduce unnecessary impacts to Missouri's sensitive natural

F { resources. The Heritage Database is only one reference which should be used to

a4 evaluate potential adverse impacts. Other types of information, such as wetland and
Soils maps and on-site inspections or surveys, should be considered. Reviewing
current landscape and habitat information and species biological characteristics would
additionally ensure that species of conservation concern are appropriately identified and
addressed.

COMMISSION

STEPHEN C. BRADFORD ANITA B. GORMAN CYNTHIA METCALFE LOWELL MOHLER
Cape Girardeau Kansas City St. Louis Jefferson City



NY :
issSuRr, Bob Holden, Governor » Stephen M. Mahfood, Director

MENT OF NATURAL RESOURCE

www.darstate.mo.us ae

DEC 1 8 2003

Mr. Kevin Rose, J. D.

HDR Engineering, Inc.

8404 Indian Hills Drive

Omaha, NE 68114-4098 .

RE: Cole and Osage County Missouri National Ambient Air Quality Standard Status
Concurrence.

Dear Mr. Rose:

Per your December 5, 2003, FAX request, this is a letter of concurrence that Cole and Osage
Counties in Missouri are in attainment (or unclassified) for the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards, and are not under any maintenance plans for criteria pollutants.

This letter was requested in order to fulfill a requirement to demonstrate that a General
Conformity Determination would not be required for a project under Federal oversight that may
take place in these counties.

For reference, 40 CFR Part 81.326 lists the federal attainment status area designations for all
states.

Thank you for your inquiry. If you have further questions, please contact Jim Kavanaugh with
the Air Pollution Control Program at P.O. Box 176, Jefferson City, MO 65102 or by phone at
(573) 751-4817. :

Sincerely,

Air Pollution Control Program

Lp (Sern cet

Leanne J. Tippett
Director

LJT:pms

Integrity and excellence in everything we do
aa Ee - & _

% oe urtt
“loriag Stiszourt’s RSOTM


[Fotve complica ay community peraitoffiak: Floodplain Development Permit No. ]

ENGINEERING "NO-RISE" CERTIFICATION

Community: County:__ Core State YO
Union Pacific Railroad Company
Applicant:_(Mark McCune) Date:Q3/12/04 |Engineer:_ John K: Denlinger
1416 Dodge Street, Room 940 4435 Main Street
Address:__Omaha, NE 68179 |Address:__Kansas City, MO 64111-186
Telephone:_ (402) 271-5194 Telephone: (816) 360-2740
SITE DATA:

1. Location: __NW__14;_NE_ 1/4; Section_21; Range _10W_; Township:__44N

Street Address:

2. Panel(s) No. of NFIP map(s) affected:___ 290107 0125

3. Type of development: Filling Grading. Excavation. Minor Improv.
Substantial-Improv. New Construction___X Other.

4. Description of Development:__Construction of a second mainline bridge, 1,235 feet
in length, located 45 feet downstream of existing structure.

5. Name of flooding source: Osage River

COMMENTS: See Attached Memo

This is to certify that I am a duly qualified engineer licensed to practice in the State of. MO. tis to
further certify that the attached technical data supports the fact that the proposed development described
above will not create any increase to the 100-year elevations on said flooding source above at published cross
sections in the Flood Insurance Study for the above community dated <Envé (72! ands will not create
any increase to the 100-year flood elevations at unpublished cross-section in the vicinity of the proposed
development.

Name:___ John K. Denlinger

Signature: WZ K. ty Date: [5 Maret Zoot

Title:_S2. WATER PEseuRCES ENGINE. License No.; 222]0OR3S

R7-No Rise



S002 940190 9420] ¢ $0 € Jdug] SRT GT |
WE ow Weand BD
avoun!vs 91 410¥d NOINN
93/funga, S409 Sovso —NolivAaia el
IYNOSSIW TALIO B3OVSO YW3N 001 ey cu)
6y'S SUN BAALY, ¥ IN3NOIS: ¥ INSNO3S:
30018S USAIS 3OVSO “GSS0doue Bee eel

o8g050u3 9 aasodoud >

8 1N3q935 8 1NIH935
te uaig 20 tala

Eee Merete! ONTASiXa 3 ONLASTXS >

A2_802 = cule Tiv 64 313u0N09
(aio BSLV HOTR ABWNIGNO ROSE TIS

re-pig “13
WOLLOE AYHBILYH

3Nt7
annows o3soddud—

aszrg “73
‘GYOHS 01

aomggy /
casntele
os’ses 13 = “ ashi}
16 "OPS 713 = 3sH — TTT
¥ pes v nonens 4 nares
aegis be uid Pauaia 4
a3sod0ud 3 G3S0d0ud > 0330d0ud
2 wayne Suc fh oli 3 neste
Se yiid ie utd ONILSIX3 >
ONE LS TRS ON(LSIX3 3-

19206. +93

tere
WOL1L08 AVHE3LViE 2 “FS

wo1s08 aie

ANanuney
saa
aasoaded



nesting pairs of bald eagles steadily increased from 417 in 1963 to 6,104 in 1999
(USFWS, 2003a). USFWS concluded that the recovery programs had been successful.
In 1999, USFWS made a proposal to remove the bald eagle from the list of threatened
and endangered species (64 FR 36454-36464, 1999). A final decision on the proposed
delisting has not been made.

1.1.2.1 Affected Environment

The analysis of potential effects of the Project on the bald eagle focuses the Project Area
including and surrounding the ROW for the selected build alternative, located 5.49 miles
from the confluence of the Osage and Missouri rivers. The portion of the Project in Cole
County is predominantly urban as Osage City extends close to the Osage River bank.
The portion of the Project in Osage County is dominated by agricultural land used for
crops that surrounds the existing track and county road.

The riparian areas on the right and left banks of the Osage River contain a narrow band of
vegetation with large, mature trees. However, in the immediate project area the
vegetation is herbaceous or mowed. The open waters of the Osage River contain fish.
These conditions provide the eagle a place for roosting and feeding. The riparian areas
and open water associated with the nearby Missouri River also provide potential bald
eagle habitat. The conditions found adjacent to and within the Osage and Missouri
Rivers increase the likelihood that bald eagles could be found in the vicinity of the
Project Area.

1.1.2.2 Species Biology

Literally translated, Haliaeetus leucocephalus means sea eagle with a white head. The
bald eagle is the only species of sea eagle that is native to the North American continent.
It is primarily a bird of aquatic ecosystems (Gerrard and Bortolotti, 1988 as printed in
60 CFR 36000-36010, 1995). Bald eagles frequent estuaries, large lakes, reservoirs,
major rivers, and some seacoast habitats (64 FR 36454-36464, 1999). Bald eagles select
areas to frequent that have an adequate food supply, perching areas, and nesting sites. In
winter, bald eagles often gather together at specific sites that are close to open water and
that offer good perch trees and night roosts (60 FR 36000-36010, 1995). Bald eagles
utilize mature, forested, riparian areas near rivers, streams, lakes, and wetlands, and
access along all the major river systems.

Bald eagles nest on both coasts from Florida to Baja, California, in the south and from
Labrador, Canada to the western Aleutian Islands, Alaska, in the north (64 FR 36454-
36464, 1999). The bald eagles’ nest is built with large sticks lined with soft materials
such as grass, leaves, and Spanish moss. A pair of bald eagles will use the same nest for
several years, adding materials to the nest each year (Texas Parks and Wildlife, 2003).
Nest sites are most often in large trees near water in relatively remote undisturbed areas.
The nests are typically below the top crown of a live tree. The trees must be sturdy, as an
average nest size is 5 feet wide and 3 feet deep (64 FR 36454-36464, 1999). Nests can be
as large as nine feet across and twelve feet deep and weigh approximately two tons.

Bald eagles become sexually mature at 4 to 5 years of age. They are believed to be
monogamous, though documentation of this is limited. Variations in pair bonding have
been known to occur under certain circumstances. For example, if one mate were to die

Osage River Bridge 3 9/21/2004
Biological Assessment


AUS. Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Farmland
Conversion Impact Rating Form was completed for the proposed Project. The approximately 6
acres of land required for reconstruction of the county road is the only prime farmland that would
be converted by the Project. This is less than 0.003 percent of Osage County’s total available
farmland of 194,645 acres. The NRCS relative value of this farmland on a scale of 0 to 100 is
80. The total score including the Site Assessment is 118 points. A rating of 160 points or higher
is considered to be a substantial impact (Appendix 2).

3.6 Wild and Scenic Rivers
No portions of the Osage River are designated as Wild and Scenic Rivers.
3.7 Air Quality

The area is in an attainment area and will have no significant impact on air quality (Appendix 2).
Constructing the second-track will eliminate the 8 to 15 hours per day of trains idling while
waiting to cross the Osage River Bridge. A written conformity determination is not required for
this project because the project area is in an area designated “attainment”. In accordance with 40
CFR 93.102, the Transportation Conformity Rule does not apply because the project was not
developed, funded, or approved under Title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Act.

3.8 Noise

The construction and operation of the Osage River Bridge is not anticipated to have a significant
impact on noise levels within and surrounding the Project Area. Noise associated with
construction of the proposed Osage River Bridge may temporarily increase noise levels in the
immediate vicinity of the Project Area, However, long-term post-construction noise increases
are not anticipated. Train traffic would not increase in volume in Osage City. In addition, the
second mainline track will eliminate trains idling 8 to 15 hours per day while waiting to cross the
Osage River Bridge.

3.9 Water Quality

Application for the Section 401 Water Quality Certification (Clean Water Act of 1977

PL 95-217) will be made to the State of Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Water
Pollution Control Program. Construction and operational activities related to this project are
consistent with and will not violate the water quality standards set by the state of Missouri.
There are no wastewater treatment plants within the project area, and the design does not involve
realignment of or other impacts to local water supply systems.

Best Management Practices will be incorporated into the project design to minimize the
opportunity for pollutants to enter the Osage or Missouri River systems. Appropriate erosion and
sediment controls will be used and maintained during construction; measures will be taken to
minimize soil disturbance by heavy equipment.

Osage River Bridge 7 12/12/2007
Environmental Assessment


pal
i
ee]

MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION

Best Management Practices

Scaleshell mussel
Leptodea leptodon

Common name e Scaleshell mussel
Scientific name ¢ Leptodea leptodon
Federal status * Candidate
State status ¢ Endangered

Ecology
In the Gasconade and Meramec river basins in
Missouri, the scaleshell inhabits clear, unpolluted
riffles with moderate current and firm gravel,
cobble and sand substrates. It frequently buries
itself in riffles to a depth of 4 - 5 inches. .
Almost all mussel species depend on a fish’ ‘host
to complete their life cycle. Mature adult. mussels
release glochidia (the immature stage), which
must attach to the gills or fins of fish to complete
their development. After an average of 2 -.4
weeks, the newly metamorphosed juveniles drop
from the fish; and if they land in suitable habitat,
they will burrow into the substrate and grow to
repeat the cycle. Fish are an important link in the
reproductive cycle of mussels and, typically, only
certain species of fish are suitable hosts. The
*veshwater drum, which spawns in late April or
fay in Missouri, is the scaleshell@s only known
fish host. The scaleshell spawns in early to mid-
August and releases glochidia in early summer,
probably ending in June.

Reasons for Decline

The scaleshell mussel was historically found in 13
states within the Ohio, Missouri and Mississippi
River drainage basins. It occurred from South
Dakota eastward to Ohio and Minnesota
southward to Arkansas and Tennessee. Now,
however, they are endangered and are known to
exist in only a few rivers in Missouri, Arkansas
and Oklahoma. Alteration and degradation of
habitat as a result of rural and urban development
have adversely impacted this species, Declines in
scaleshell numbers in Missouri streams can be
attributed to direct mortality or habitat loss from
improper and untimely gravel and sand removal,
increased sedimentation from clearing of
streamside vegetation, run-off of fertilizers,
pesticides and urban non-point source pollutants
and excessive nutrient input from free-roaming
livestock. These practices have also reduced the
tality and quantity of habitat for fishes, further
- sducing the inherently-low probability for
successful mussel and fish encounters.

Specific Recommendations

If guidelines provided by the Missouri
Department of Conservation are closely followed,
in-stream activities should result j in few negative
impacts on the scaleshell. *

++ A survey of the waterways in the project area
should be conducted by a trained biologist in
order to identify occurring populations of this
species.

-+ Dams and other impoundment structures that
alter water depth and turbidity and promote
siltation should be avoided in rivers that contain
habitat for the scaleshell.

> Project activities should not be allowed below
the high bank of the stream between May 1 and
June 30 and from August 1 to August 31.

- *> Sheet piling used to construct in-stream coffer

dams can be placed after August 31 and removed
before the following May 1.

++ All equipment that enters the waterway should
be washed and checked for juvenile zebra mussels
before entering another body of water. This will
help prevent the spread of this exotic European
mussel species that can negatively affect native
aquatic organisms and kill mussel species like the
scaleshell.

General Recommendations

Refer to Management Recommendations for
Construction Projects Affecting Missouri Streams

and Rivers.

Information Contacts

Missouri Department of Conservation
Policy Coordination Section
P.O. Box 180
2901 W. Truman Blvd
Jefferson City, MO 65102-0180
Telephone: 573/751-4115,

Missouri Department of Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 176
Jefferson City, MO 65102-0176 |
Telephone: 573/526-3315

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
_ Regulatory Branch
700 Federal Building
Kansas City, MO 64106-2896
Telephone: 81 '6/983-3990


Efforts put forth as part of the Pallid Sturgeon Recovery Plan have resulted in the first
known natural reproduction of the pallid sturgeon in the Lower Missouri River in at least
50 years (USFWS, 2000b). Several pallid sturgeons were found at a habitat restoration
project on a unit of the Big Muddy National Fish and Wildlife Refuge near Columbia,
Missouri (USFWS, 2000a). USFWS purchased land and allowed the river to follow
natural processes of erosion, deposition, and succession. During flooding in 1993, the
river cut a sandbar in a side channel of the Lower Missouri River. This was expanded to
a chute-island-sandbar complex during flooding in 1995 and 1996 (USFWS, 2000b).
USFWS biologists consider this finding to be an encouraging step in the recovery of the
pallid sturgeon but caution that the species is still in danger of extinction (USFWS,
2000a).

Regional Area and Study Area

. The pallid sturgeon is known to occur in the portion of the Osage River flowing through
the Study Area. However, the channelization of the Missouri River, as well as over-
harvesting of the species, has greatly reduced the numbers of pallid sturgeon in the area.
The USFWS has designated the Missouri-Osage River confluence, located just to the
northeast of the Study Area, as a Recovery-Priority Management Area (RPMA) for the
pallid sturgeon (USFWS, 1993). The RPMA extends upstream and downstream from the
Missouri-Osage River confluence for 20 miles (USFWS, 1993). RPMAs for the pallid
sturgeon are designated in areas that have suitable habitat to support the species and have
the potential to contribute to the recovery of the species (USFWS, 2000c). The USFWS
2000 Biological Opinion states that the Missouri River from Gavins Point Dam
downstream to the confluence with the Mississippi River is now considered a RPMA
(USFWS, 2000c).

1.1.3.4. Effects of the Project

Direct Effects

Based on known information on the pallid sturgeon as described above, it is possible for
the pallid sturgeon to be in the Study Area. However, pallid sturgeon spawning habitat or
young growth habitat is not present within the Study Area. Therefore, the Project should
not result in any direct impacts on spawning or growth of young. The Osage River is
channelized in the Study Area, and water velocities and turbidity are not conducive to
pallid sturgeon inhabitance”. In addition, there are no side channels or chutes in the
Study Area. However, downstream of the Study Area, at the confluence with the
Missouri River, suitable habitat is available, so there is potential for migrating pallid
sturgeons to be in the Study Area. The species is mobile and would likely avoid the area
of the Project during construction. Pallid sturgeons are likely to continue using this
portion of the river for migration purposes following the completion of construction.

Construction of the new Osage River crossing would result in the placement of four piers
in the Osage River for the proposed bridge. The bridge would be located approximately

? Inhabitance is defined as “the act of inhabiting, or the state of being inhabited; the condition of an
inhabitant; residence; occupancy” (MICRA, Inc., 1998).

Osage River Bridge 10 9/21/2004
Biological Assessment


1.1.3.5. Conservation Measures

To minimize the impact of construction on pallid sturgeon, it would be beneficial to
avoid pier construction during the spawning period (early April through July) for the
pallid sturgeon as described above. The area of the confluence with the Missouri River
provides habitat for pallid sturgeon and their young, so minimization of sediment
disturbance during construction during April through July may also allow for continued
pallid sturgeon migration through the Study Area to reach the Missouri River. Measures
to avoid harm to the pallid sturgeon would include controlling erosion from construction
activities, measures to avoid water quality impacts on the Osage River, and maintaining
suitable water flow and fish passage.

1.1.3.6. Conclusion

The Project is located within a RPMA for the pallid sturgeon on the Osage River, but the
Study Area is located in a reach that currently lacks suitable habitat. Pallid sturgeon use
of this area is primarily migratory in nature. Construction of the project is not expected
to result in the incidental take of any pallid sturgeon. The Project may provide some
minor habitat enhancement through the scouring of small pool areas above and below the
bridge piers that could provide wintering habitat for pallid sturgeon.

1.1.3.7. Determination of Effects (Finding)

The UPRR Osage River Bridge may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the pallid
sturgeon. The majority of the impacts on the pallid sturgeon would be temporary in
nature and associated with pier construction. Over the long term, the scour areas located
immediately upstream and downstream of the piers may provide small areas of pool
habitat for pallid sturgeon to use for wintering purposes. The type and extent of predicted
impacts on pallid sturgeons are considered insignificant effects and should not reach the
scale where a take would occur.

1.1.4, Freshwater Mussels

The Osage River is known to support a variety of species of mussels, including the pink
mucket pearlymussel (Lampsilis abrupta) that was Federally listed as endangered in June
of 1976, the scaleshell mussel (Leptodea leptodon) that was Federally listed as
endangered in 2001, and the Missouri state-listed species of giant floater mussel
(Pyganodon grandis) and black sandshell mussel (Ligumia recta).

A habitat survey was conducted for freshwater mussels in and immediately up- and
downstream of the Project Area on February 3, 2004. The area was surveyed by a diver
along transects. The substrate was found to consist primarily of “unconsolidated gravel
with some sand and silt” but “patches of consolidated clay and shifty sand” were also
noted (Ecological Specialists, Inc., 2004). Live mussels as well as weathered dead shells
were observed during the habitat survey, including one weathered dead shell of a pink
mucket pearlymussel. Based upon the results of this survey, a freshwaters species survey
was determined necessary.

Osage River Bridge 12 9/21/2004
Biological Assessment


The UPRR coordinated with the USFWS to complete the species survey. Species
surveys were completed in May 2004 by Ecological Specialists, Inc. The surveys
identified 63 live mussels of 14 different species scattered throughout the area. No
threatened or endangered species were found. A regression analysis was completed to
determine the likely mussel abundance in the entire survey area and resulted in an
estimate of 320 live mussels of 18 species. No mussel beds were identified. Ecological
Specialists, Inc. determined that the mussels present in the area likely washed
downstream from upstream beds and only those finding a stable place to live remain in
the area. While no threatened or endangered species were found there remains some
minimal potential for a small number pink mucket pearlymussels to be found in the
project area, however, the Project would only affect a few individual mussels and would
not affect the pink mucket pearlymussel population in the Osage River.

In a June 16, 2004 letter USFWS indicated concurrence with the species survey findings
and the determination that the Project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect state
and/or Federally listed mussel species (USFWS, 2004).

Osage River Bridge 13 9/21/2004
Biological Assessment


++ Post-construction evaluation of vegetation
establishment should be conducted at one month
intervals for at least three months after completion
of the project. Any recommended sediment controls
should be inspected at these times. If determined
beneficial to soil stability and not adversely
impacting site function and/or aesthetics,
recommended sediment controls should remain
permanent.

++ All temporary erosion and sediment controls
should be removed (unless removal would cause —
further disturbance) and properly disposed of within
30 days after final site stabilization is achieved or.
after temporary practices are no longer needed.

Bank and Channel Management os
Recommendations ,
The structure of a bank is an important feature of a
stream or river. It defines and provides stability for
the channel.

+ Bank stability will vary depending on height,
slope, and soil conditions. Project engineers and

hydrologists should thoroughly investigate the
physical properties and hydrologic record of the

_ proposed site before construction begins.

+> Limit clearing of vegetation, including both
standing and downed timber, to that which is
absolutely necessary for construction purposes.

=> Projects in which bank alteration is necessary
should employ, to the highest degree possible,
erosion prevention measures before actual
excavation activities begin. These preventative
measures should be monitored regularly and
maintained for the duration of the project.

+ Use of riprap for stream bank stabilization should
be limited to those areas that could experience
substantial erosion before adequate vegetation
becomes established. The material for the rock
blanket should consist of durable stone or broken
concrete that is well graded. It is preferable that 40-
60 percent of the material be as large as the
thickness of the blanket, with enough smaller pieces
of various sizes to fill the larger voids. It should not
contain more than 10 percent of earth, sand, shale,
and non-durable rock. Bank stabilization materials
should allow for continuous passage of fish and
other aquatic species.

“+ No permanent fill materials, other than design-
approved structures and related bank stabilization
materials, should be placed in the stream channel.
Avoid channelization. Excavated materials should
not be stored or stockpiled below the high bank.

+ Work should be conducted during low flow
periods when possible.

-+ Care should be taken to keep machinery out of
the waterway as much as possible.

++ Do not alter or remove natural stream features,
such as riffles and pools.

+ Large woody debris is an important habitat
component of a stream and should not be removed
unless absolutely necessary for.construction and
maintenance purposes. °

Information Contacts

For further information regarding regulations for
development near streams and rivers, contact:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Ecological Services Field Office
608 E. Cherry Street, Room 200

Columbia, MO 65201
Telephone: 573/876-1911

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Branch
700 Federal Building
Kansas City, MO 64106-2896
Telephone: 816/983-3990

Missouri Department of Conservation
Policy Coordination Section
P.O. Box 180
2901 W. Truman Blvd
Jefferson City, MO 65102-0180
Telephone: 573/751-4115

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Water, Wetlands, and Pesticides Division
901 North Sth Street
Kansas City, KS 66101
Telephone: 913/551-7307

Missouri Department of Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 176 «
Jefferson City, MO 65102-0176
Telephone: 573/526-3315

Disclaimer

These Best Management Practices were prepared by
the Missouri Department of Conservation with
assistance from other state agencies, contractors,
and others to provide guidance to those people who
wish to voluntarily act to protect wildlife and
habitat. Compliance with Best Management
Practices is not required by the Missouri Wildlife
and Forestry Law nor by any regulation of the
Missouri Conservation Commission. Other federal,
state, or local laws may affect construction practices,


pushing back the western abutment and replacing a 50 foot span with spans approximately 36
and 68 feet in length with construction of a pier. A maximum total impact of 7,310 cubic yards
of material will be dredged and deposited in a prior converted non-wetland area located adjacent
to the left descending bank of the Missouri River, between river mile 138.4 and 138.6 in
Callaway County, Missouri.

Floodplain Development Permits were issued by Cole and Osage County on April 7, 2004 and
May 26, 2004, respectively (Appendix 2). The floodplain permits are conditional on the
approval of a Section 404 Permit and 401 Water Quality Certification. The proposed project will
not have a significant impact on flood heights, nor stimulate additional development within the
floodplain.

3.3 Wetlands

A desktop screening was performed to identify potential waters that may be impacted by the
proposed project. Information used to conduct the desktop screening included the Soil Surveys
from Cole and Osage Counties, Missouri, hydric soils lists, the National Wetland Inventory Data,
preliminary plan drawings, and aerial photography.

A field investigation was performed on November 21, 2003 to identify wetlands within the
project area. Wetlands were delineated in accordance with the 1987 Manual for Delineating
Wetlands (USACE 1987). The field investigation confirmed that there are five waters of the
U.S. (four wetland areas and the Osage River) within the project limits. The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service manual Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats (Cowardin et.al.
1979) was used to classify wetland features. A total of three wetland areas totaling 0.15 acres
were delineated in the project area including 0.09 acres of palustrine emergent wetlands, 0.02
acres of palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, and 0.04 acres of palustrine forested wetlands.

Impacted wetlands will be mitigated through the purchase of one credit, which is one acre of
wetland from the Lower Missouri River Mitigation Bank. One acre would allow for mitigation
of emergent and scrub-shrub wetland impacts at a 3:1 ratio and forested wetland impacts at a 4:1
ratio. (Appendix 2).

A Corps of Engineers’ Section 404 Permit for wetland fill has been submitted and is being
processed. The requirements of Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands have been
satisfied.

3.4 Fish and Wildlife

A variety of large and small mammals and herpetofauna can be expected to occur in the project
vicinity. A Biological Assessment (BA) was prepared to identify federally listed species and
habitat that could support these species in the Study Area and to evaluate the potential impacts of
implementing one of the alternatives (Appendix 3). In compliance with the Endangered Species
Act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Columbia Field Office provided a list of
threatened and endangered species that could potentially occur within Osage and Cole Counties,
Missouri. This list included the threatened bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), endangered

Osage River Bridge 4 12/12/2007
Environmental Assessment


on an annual basis. A total of 42 trains, including four Amtrak trains, pass through the single-
track segment of the Jefferson City Subdivision everyday. Trains are forced to idle in the areas
of double track on either side of this segment until the Osage River Bridge is free for crossing.
Total train idling time per day ranges from 8 to 15 hours. This could be one train idling for eight
hours or multiple trains idling for a total of 15 hours. The construction of a second-track bridge
would complete the two mainline track system in the Jefferson City Subdivision for one of the
two remaining single-track segments and would eliminate the need for any trains to idle near
Osage City while waiting for track access across the Osage River. The purpose of the project is
to eliminate the pinch point that currently exists in the UPRR track system in the Jefferson City
Subdivision at the Osage River Bridge.

2.0 Alternatives Considered

2.1 Evaluated Alternatives

2.1.1 No-Build, No Action: This alternative was determined not to be feasible because
the pinch point created by the single-track segment of the Osage River Bridge would remain and
train service would not be improved.

2.1.2 Construct Second-Track Bridge Upstream of Existing Bridge: An alignment
located upstream of the existing bridge would adversely impact a residential neighborhood and
require the taking of residential property.

2.1.3 Construct Second-Track Bridge Downstream of the Existing Bridge: This
alternative was designed to be compatible with the existing bridge and would not require the
taking of additional property. UPRR already controls the majority of right-of-way for the
proposed double-track alignment.

3.0 Summary of Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

3.1. Community, Social and Economic

The proposed Osage River Bridge is located approximately 40 feet north of the existing bridge
and will be compatible with the proposed double-track alignment. Construction will take place
primarily within existing UPRR right-of-way and will not result in any residential or business
displacements. There will be no direct impacts to schools, churches, shopping areas, businesses
or other similar neighborhood or community institutions. There will be no disproportionate
adverse impacts on any minority, low income, or unique social groups due to this project.
Current bicycle and pedestrian travel would not be altered. The proposed project will comply
with the requirements of Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice.

3.2. Floodplain
The proposed Osage River Bridge is located within the 100-year floodplain of the Osage River.

With the preferred alternative no material would be placed below the 100-year flood contours for
temporary access roads, workpads, causeways, or bridges. The existing bridge will be altered by

Osage River Bridge 3 12/12/2007
Environmental Assessment


APPENDIX 2
Agency Correspondence and Comments


3.4.3 Mussels

The Osage River is known to support a variety of species of mussels, including the pink mucket
pearlymussel (Lampsilis abrupta), the scaleshell mussel (Leptodea leptodon), and the Missouri
state-listed species of giant floater mussel (Pyganodon grandis) and black sandshell mussel
(Ligumia recta). A habitat survey was conducted for freshwater mussels in and immediately up-
and downstream of the Project Area. Live mussels as well as weathered dead shells were
observed during the habitat survey, including one weathered dead shell of a pink mucket
pearlymussel. Based upon the results of this survey, a freshwater species survey was determined
necessary.

The UPRR coordinated with the USFWS to complete the species survey. The surveys identified
63 live mussels of 14 different species scattered throughout the area. No threatened or
endangered species were found. A regression analysis was completed to determine the likely
mussel abundance in the entire survey area and resulted in an estimate of 320 live mussels of 18
species. No mussel beds were identified. Ecological Specialists, Inc. determined that the
mussels present in the area likely washed downstream from upstream beds and only those
finding a stable place to live remain in the area. While no threatened or endangered species were
found there remains some minimal potential for a small number pink mucket pearlymussels to be
found in the project area, however, the Project would only affect a few individual mussels and
would not affect the pink mucket pearlymussel population in the Osage River.

In a June 16, 2004 letter, USFWS indicated concurrence with the species survey findings and the
determination that the Project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect state and/or
Federally listed mussel species (Appendix 2).

3.4.4 Wildlife

The construction of 0.49 miles of a second-track adjacent to the existing track and constructing
an additional bridge is not expected to alter wildlife movements through the area. Long-term
impacts are expected to be minimal as they are already restricted by the existing rail facility.
Natural features traversed include open water associated with the Osage River, vegetated
floodplain, and small wetlands. Loss of habitat is negligible.

3.5 Prime and Unique Farmlands

The majority of the Osage River Bridge Project Area consists of existing right-of-way (29.4
acres). The Project Area will acquire an additional 0.4 acres on the north side of the railroad
tracks in Osage City and 5.3 acres on the east side of the Osage River for a total of 5.7 acres.
None of this land is currently serving an agricultural use. The 0.4 acres required in Osage City is
currently acting as part of a buffer between the railroad tracks and nearby homes. This 0.4 acres
is located near the pinch point where two tracks reduce to one. On the east side of the Osage
River, County Road 145 parallels the existing single-track. This county road would need to be
moved north to accommodate the addition of a second-track. Approximately 6 acres of existing
farmland will need to be acquired for reconstruction of the road.

Osage River Bridge 6 12/12/2007
Environmental Assessment


il
|

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

NRCS-CPA-106

Natural Resources Conservation Service Rov. 1-51)
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
FOR CORRIDOR TYPE PROJECTS
PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency) 3, Date of Land Evaluation Request Sheets of 4
T Name of Project > 3 Federal Agency Invowved
aime of Project Osage River Bridge MP 116.89 US Army Corns of Enaineers & US Coast Guard
2. Type of Project transportation Corridor 6. County and State Qgage County, Missouri. 2+
T. Date Request Received by NRCS] 2. Person Completing Fonn
PART I! (To be completed by NRCS} 31810: via y Keith Davis
3, Does the corridor contain prime, unique statewide or local important farmland? ww O 4. eras Irigated | Average Farm Size
{If n0, the FPPA does not apply - Do not complete additional parts of this form). 266
5. Major Grop(s) (6. Farmable Land in Government Joriedicion 7, Rmmount of Farmland As Dalined in FPPA
Com (for index) Acres: 194,645 % 50 Acres: % 50
3 Name Of Land Evalualion Sysiem Used 'S. Name of Local Sile Assessment System 10. Dale Land Evaluation Returned by NRCS
Osage County none 2/11/04
or Alternative Corridor For Segment
PART Ill (To be completed by Federal Agency) ee Corridor A Corridor B Corridor © Corridor D
A, Total Acres To Be Converted Directly 0
B. Total Acres To Be Converted indirectly, Or To Receive Services 6
G. Total Acres In Corridor 6 0 0 0
PART IV (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information
A, Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland 6
B, Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland oO
C. Percentage Of Farmiand in County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted 2003
D. Percentage Of Farmiand in Govt, Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Vatue | _/7. 7
PART V (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information Criterion Relative 38
value of Farmland to Be Serviced or Converted (Scale of 0 - 100 Points) O
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Corridor Maximum|
Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(c))| Points
4, Area in Nonurban Use 45 15
2. Perimeter in Nonurban Use 10 8
3._Percent Of Corridor Being Farmed 20 0
4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government 20 0
5._Size of Present Farm Unit Gompared To Average 70 40
6. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmiand 25 0
7.. Availability Of Farm Support Services 5 5
8, On-Farm Investments 20 0
9,_Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services 25 0
10. Compatibtity With Existing Agricultural Use 10 0
TOTAL CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT POINTS 160 38 0 0 °
PART Vi (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) to | GO
‘Total Corridor Assessment (From Part VI above of a focal site
assessment) 160 38 6 0 °
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 fines) 20 Tye 113 | o 0 0
T. Comidor Selected: Total Acres of Fanmlands to be | 3, Dale Of Selection: “. Was A Local Site Assessment Used?
Converted by Project:
Corda A Hzf
vr aley b Z/1Z/04 vs wo

5. Reason For Selection:

Qh2jar

‘Signature of Person Complegigptnis Part

PAE

NOTE: Complete a form for each segment with more than one Alternate Corridor



Reevaluation of
U.S. Coast Guard

Environmental Assessment

Project: Union Pacific Railroad Osage River Bridge, Mile 5.49, Near Osage City, between Cole
and Osage Counties, Missouri

Background: On December 13, 2007, the U. S. Coast Guard approved a Finding of No
Significant Impact for this project. Information included in this document identified the
proposed bridge would consist of three 300+-foot spans, one 252-foot span, and one 69-foot
span. It also identified approximately 7,310 cubic yards of material being dredged and deposited
in a prior converted non-wetland area. The original FONSI supported issuance of Coast Guard
Bridge Permit (2-08-8) dated January 31, 2008. The applicant has revised the plans to change
pier span spacing, eliminate dredging and possible construction method.

This reevaluation is being prepared to document the change in project design and impacts. The
proposed new bridge will consist of 10 spans consisting of seven deck plate girders, one through
plate girder and two steel beam spans. This new design will eliminate the need to dredge without
impacting navigational concerns. A proposed construction alternative for building the new
bridge would consist of placing a temporary elevated work platform adjacent to the new bridge
to facilitate bridge construction instead of using barges. The temporary elevated platform would
be built with H-pile driven into the ground with a steel supported deck. A 45-foot section of the
elevated platform would be removed every night, weekend and as necessary to provide passage
of vessels.

Summary and recommendation: Changes in bridge design, reduced dredging requirements
and possible construction methods have been evaluated under the provisions of NEPA. All other
impacts associated with the project have been reviewed and remain the same as described in the
original EA. The revised project has been reevaluated and determined not to have significant
impacts on the human environment.

2.2 o/nhe

Roger 8. Wiebusch Date
Bridge Administrator
Coast Guard Bridge Branch



Owners Name Owners Address Property Address
(if different than Property)
James Schaller 10012 Steamboat Run Rd. 9016 Osage Grand Ave
Jefferson City, MO
65101
Tina Loethen 9012 Osage Front St.
Bessie Sandidge Jefferson City, MO
65101
Donald Morgan 9003 Osage Front St.
Jefferson City, MO
65101
Webster & Janet Ortbals 39749 Rt. V 9002 Railroad St.
Russellville, MO.
65074
Robert Channer 11349 W. Rooks Ct, 9006 Railroad St.
Sharon Aldrich Homasassa, FL

34448

William & Nancy Backes

9018 Railroad St.
Jefferson City, MO
65101

9014 Railroad St.

Current Resident

9018 Railroad St.
Jefferson City, MO
65101

Floyd & Diana Johnson

9006 Stage Coach Rd.
Jefferson City, MO
65101

Osage Fourth St.

Daniel Buschjost

9836 Engineers Rd.
Jefferson City, MO

9108 Railroad St.

65101
Harold & Dorothy Meisel 2106 Osage Third St.
Jefferson City, MO
65101
Herman & Vincent Sanning 232 Mary Dr. 9204 Railroad St.
Jefferson City, MO
65101

Jean Chandler

1511 Stadium Blvd.
Jefferson City, MO
65109

9208 Railroad St.

Floyd & Diana Johnson

9006 Stage Coach Rd.
Jefferson City, MO
65101

9212 Railroad St.

Page 2of 3


5.0 Statement of Environmental Significance of the Proposed Project

The proposed project will result in minimal short-term (during construction) and no long-term
adverse environmental impacts. The project will improve environmental conditions and
efficiency of rail operations. Best management practices will be followed and all measures to
minimize harm have been included in the planning of the proposed Osage River Bridge. The
new bridge will provide for the reasonable needs and safety of navigation. Also the city of
Osage City will benefit with cleaner air and a quieter atmosphere with the elimination of trains
idling for 8 to 15 hours per day while waiting to cross the single-track Osage River Bridge.

6.0 Agency Coordination

Listed are agencies contacted in preparation of this environmental assessment.

U.S. Coast Guard
U.S. Coast Guard Bridge Permit
(Roger Wiebusch, David Orzechowski)

U.S. Department of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service

Prime and Unique Farmland
(Keith Davis)

U.S. Department of the Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service

Threatened & Endangered Species Inquiry
(Jane Ledwin, Rick Hansen)

Missouri Department of Natural Resources

Division of Historic Preservation
(Mark Miles, Brant Vollman)

Clean Water Commission
(Stephen Manipod)

Air Pollution Control Program
(Leanne J. Tippett)

Water Pollution Control Program
Section 401 Water Quality Certification
(Dan Boos)

Osage River Bridge 9
Environmental Assessment

12/12/2007


3.10 Navigation

Waterborne traffic will not be permanently or unreasonably obstructed by the proposed project.
The navigation channel would be maintained throughout the life of the Project. The Osage River
is primarily used by recreational boats and does not support large vessels. The navigation
clearance of the new Osage River Bridge would be the same as the existing bridge. The U.S.
Coast Guard has reviewed preliminary bridge drawings and has approved the navigational
clearance. The Corps of Engineers does not maintain a navigation channel nor has plans for a
navigation project on this waterway.

3.11 Parks, Historic and Cultural Properties, and Recreation

The Missouri State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) stated in a letter dated March 24, 2004
that none of the archaeological sites located in the Area of Potential Effects are eligible for
listing in the National Register of Historic Places and further conclude there will be no historic
properties affected by the project (Appendix 2).

4.0 A Comparative Analysis of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

4.1. Preferred Alternative

This EA has evaluated the potential environmental, cultural, and socioeconomic impacts from
the proposed construction of the Osage River Bridge. The EA determined that one feasible
construction (build) alternative for the proposed action exist.

4.1.1 No Action

This alternative was determined not to be feasible because the pinch point created by the single-
track segment of the Osage River Bridge would remain and train service would not be improved.

4.1.2 Construct Second-Track Bridge Upstream of Existing Bridge

This is not a viable option because the location and design of the second-track. An alignment
located upstream of the existing bridge would adversely impact a residential neighborhood and
require the taking of residential property.

4.1.3 Construct Second-Track Bridge Downstream of Existing Bridge

This alternative was designed to be compatible with the existing bridge and would not require the
taking of additional property. UPRR already controls the majority of right-of-way for the
proposed double-track alignment. This alternative was designed to be compatible with the
existing bridge and minimize the amount of time required for construction of the proposed bridge.

Osage River Bridge 8 12/12/2007
Environmental Assessment


In compliance with the ESA and as part of the correspondence occurring during the
preparation of the EA, the USFWS Columbia Field Office provided a list of threatened
and endangered species that could potentially occur within Osage and Cole Counties,
Missouri. This letter as well as all other agency correspondence is located in Appendix 1.
This list included the threatened bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), endangered
Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis), endangered pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus),
endangered pink mucket pearlymussel (Lampsilis abrupta), and the endangered scaleshell
mussel (Leptodea leptodon). :

Species identified by Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC) for the Osage River
Bridge Site in a March 9, 2004 letter included the Federally-listed pink mucket
pearlymussel and scaleshell mussel. State listed species identified were giant floater
mussel (Pyganodon grandis) and black sandshell mussel (Ligumia recta).

This BA has been drafted to focus on the Federally listed species identified by the
USFWS at the Osage River Bridge site and is based on thorough review of available
research on the bald eagle, pallid sturgeon, pink mucket pearlymussel, and scaleshell
mussel. These species are discussed in detail in the Sections 1.1.2, 1.1.3 and 1.1.4
respectively.

1.1.2 Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

The bald eagle was once found in every state of the nation except Hawaii. In 1782,
because of its widespread geographic range, the bald eagle was named the national
symbol of the United States. At that time, approximately 100,000 nesting pairs of bald
eagles were located in what are now the lower 48 states (that is, excluding Alaska and
Hawaii). During the mid- to late 1800s, a major decline in the population of the bald
eagle was noted due to hunting and the loss of nesting habitat. Further decline of the bald
eagle population was noted after World War II when the pesticide dichloro-diphenyl-
trichloroethane (DDT) was introduced. This chemical compound was first sprayed along
coastal and wetland areas to control mosquitoes. Then it was used in a widespread
manner as a general crop insecticide. Eagles ingested DDT by eating contaminated fish,
which consequently caused the shells of the bald eagle egg to thin and led to a high
incidence of nesting failure. By 1963, only 417 nesting pairs of bald eagles were located
in the lower 48 states (USFWS, 1999). This decline in population prompted USFWS in
1967 to list bald eagles south of the 40" parallel as endangered under the Endangered
Species Preservation Act of 1966 (64 FR 36454-36464, 1999).

In 1972, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) banned the use of DDT within the
United States. Nationwide bald eagle surveys were conducted in 1973 and 1974. These
surveys concluded that the bald eagle population throughout the lower 48 states was
continuing to decline. In 1978 under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, USFWS listed
the species as endangered throughout the lower 48 states, except Michigan, Minnesota,
Wisconsin, Washington, and Oregon, where the species was listed as threatened.
USFWS set up recovery regions within the lower 48 states with the intent of protecting
the bald eagle and preserving the habitat supporting the species. The recovery regions
proved to be successful, and in 1995 USFWS officially changed the status of the bald
eagle from threatened in five states and from endangered in the remaining lower 48 states
to threatened throughout the lower 48 states (64 FR 36454-36464, 1999). The number of

Osage River Bridge 2 9/21/2004
Biological Assessment


| FROY, + OSAGE COUNTY EMA FAX NO. :5738978379 “May. 26 2884 18:19AM P2
a“

a
|

a

OSAGE.COUNTY

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ;
Russell Schuelen - 106 East Main Street + Bradley Strope
Presiding Commissioner - P.O. Box 1011 : EMA Director
. Linn, Missouri 65051
Telephone: (573) 897-3561 * Fax:.(573) 897-0379 Email: osage ema@hotmail.com
ys May 26,2004
Mr John Denlinger, PE
HDR Engineering, Inc.
8404 Indian Hills Drive

Omaha, NE. 68114-4098

Re: UPRR Floodplain Development Permit

Mr, Denlinger;

Please consider this a conditional approval for the Floodplain Development Permit.

2 Tam unsure if there is a need for a COE 404 permit and a DNR 401 permit for
this structure in Osage County. If these permits have been completed, please
forward copies to retain in our file.

" Tunderstand the phasing of construction and will allow the permit to run
through 2007 as Cole County. .At this time the bridge must be under contract
with a date of completion or the partially constructed structure must be removed
at the UPPR’s expense. ©

Should you have any questions please contact this office at your convenience.”

Respectfully,

Osage County
Floodplain Administrator

CC: File


US, Army Corps of Engineers
H Regulatory Branch
: 700 Federal Building
. Kansas City, MO 64106-2896
. Telephone: 816/983-3990

Be U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
i Water, Wetlands, and Pesticides Division
901 North Sth Street
Kansas City, KS 66101

Telephone: 913/551-7307

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
. Ecological Services Field Office
t 608 E. Cherry Street, Room 200

: Columbia, MO 65201
Telephone: 573/876-1911
Disclaimer
These Best Management Practices were prepared .

» by the Missouri Department of Conservation with
ot assistance from other state agencies, contractors,

: and others to provide guidance to those people
who wish to voluntarily act to protect wildlife and
habitat. Compliance with Best Management
Practices is not required by the Missouri wildlife
and forestry law nor by any regulation of the
Missouri Conservation Commission. Other
federal, state or local laws may affect construction
practices,

3/2000



Owners Name

Owners Address

(if different than Property)

Property Address

Richard Martin

7824 Henwick Ln.
Jefferson City, MO
65109

9216 Railroad St.

David & Myrtle Morris

5981 N Highway W
Columbia, MO
65202

Osage Second St.

William & Ethel Duncan

11570 County Rd. 4012
Holts Summit, MO
65043

2103 Osage Second St.

Mary Hoops 4854 Hammett Place 2106 Osage Water St.
St. Louis, MO
63166

State of Missouri NRCS Sec 16, T44N, Ri0W

1442 Arron Court #G
Jefferson City, MO
65101-2868

Exchange National Bank
Trustees
Mary E Gratz

P.O. Box 688
Jefferson City, MO
65102

Sec 16, T44N, ROW

Page 3 of 3


pea

Best Management Practices

MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION

Pink mucket

Lampsilis abrupta

Common name ¢ Pink mucket

Scientific name * Lampsilis abrupta
Federal status ¢ Endangered
State status ¢ Endangered

Ecology

The pink mucket is generally found in large rivers
in moderate to fast-flowing water. This mussel
species will use a range of substrates but generally
prefers sand, gravel and cobble. It has been found
in standing to moderately-flowing water as. ,
shallow as 1 inch to as deep as 5 feet.

Mussels are filter feeders that pump water
through their siphons to collect food particles
from the water. They gather necessary nutrients
and remove unwanted toxins from the water |
through this process. Almost al! mussel species
depend on a fish host to complete their life cycle.
Mature adult mussels release glochidia (the
immature stage), which must attach to the gills or
fins of fish to complete their development. After
an average of 2-4 weeks, the newly
metamorphosed juveniles drop from the fish; and
if they land in suitable habitat, they will burrow
into the substrate and grow to repeat the cycle.
Fish are an important link in the reproductive
cycle of mussels and, typically, only certain
species of fish are suitable hosts. The pink mucket
uses several species of fish for a host, including
the black basses (largemouth, smallmouth and
spotted bass) and walleye. The pink mucket
spawns in August and September and releases
glochidia the following year from May to July.

Reasons for Decline

The pink mucket has disappeared from much of its
historic habitat in approximately 26 rivers
throughout the Midwest and eastern United States.
It has always been rare or uncommon throughout
its range. Alteration and degradation of habitat as a
result of rural and urban development has
adversely impacted this species. Declines in pink
mucket numbers in Missouri rivers and streams
can be attributed to direct mortality or habitat loss
from dam construction, channelization, improper
and untimely gravel and sand removal, increased
sedimentation from clearing of streamside
vegetation, run-off of fertilizers, pesticides and
urban non-point source pollutants and excessive ©
nutrient input from free-roaming livestock. These

practices have reduced availability and quality of
habitat for fishes, further reducing the inherently-
low probability for successful encounters between
mussels and their hosts. _

ae
Specific Recommendations

Close adherence to guidelines provided by the
Missouri Department of Conservation will help
ensure successful pink mucket reproduction and
recruitment.

- A survey of the waterways in the project area
must be conducted by a trained biologist-in order
to identify occurring populations of this species.
++ Dams and other water impoundment structures
should be prohibited in stretches of rivers where
there is possible pink mucket habitat to avoid
altering water temperature, turbidity and oxygen
levels.

+ Project activities should not be allowed below
the high bank of the stream between May 1 and
September 30 to protect the spawning season and
glochidial release period of the pink mucket.

«+ Sheet piling used to construct in-stream coffer
dams can be placed after September 30 and
removed before the following May 1.

++ All equipment that enters the waterway should
be washed and checked for juvenile zebra mussels
before entering another body of water. This will
help prevent the spread of this exotic European
mussel species that can negatively affect native
aquatic organisms and mussel species like the
pink mucket.

General Recommendations

Refer to Management Recommendations for
Construction Projects Affecting Missouri Streams

and Rivers,

Information Contacts

Missouri Department of Conservation
Policy Coordination Section
P.O. Box 180
2901 W. Truman Blvd
Jefferson City, MO 65102-0180
Telephone: 573/751-4115

Missouri Department of Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Quality
: P.O. Box 176
Jefferson City, MO 65102-0176
Telephone: 573/526-3315


1.1.3.3. Current Condition of Species/Critical Habitat

As discussed in Section 1.1.3.4, the pallid sturgeon prefers a habitat characterized by
turbid, swiftly moving waters with a natural hydrograph and a sandy substrate. However,
all 3,350 river miles of the natural habitat of the pallid sturgeon have been modified.

This alteration combined with over-harvest of the species caused the species to be listed
as endangered under the ESA. There have been no critical habitat designations for the
pallid sturgeon. Consequently, none of the portions of the river within the Study Area are
considered critical habitat.

Rangewide

The 3,350 river miles of pallid sturgeon habitat is primarily within the Missouri River
and the Mississippi River downstream of the junction with the Missouri River (Gilbraith
et al. 1988, as printed in 55 FR 36641-36647, 1990). However, a population of the pallid
sturgeon has been detected in the Atchafalaya River (in Louisiana) downriver from its
confluence with the Mississippi River (Keenlyne and Jenkins, 1993, Keenlyne and
Evenson 1993 as printed in Duffy, Berry, and Keenlyne, 1999). Sightings of the pallid
sturgeon have been reported from the mouth of the Mississippi to the mouth of the
Missouri, from the mouth of the Missouri to where the river flows through Fort Benton,
Montana, and in the lower Yellowstone River (55 FR 36641-36647, 1990). Occasionally
other sightings of the pallid sturgeon are reported near the mouths of large tributaries to
the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers. These sightings have occurred at the Big Sunflower
River and St. Francis River, which are tributaries to the Mississippi River, and the Kansas
River and Platte River, which are tributaries to the Missouri River (55 FR 36641-36647,
1990).

Sightings of the pallid sturgeon have steadily decreased over time. During the 1960s, an
average of 50 pallid sturgeons was observed per year throughout the entire 3,350 river
mile range of the species. An average of 21 observations per year was made during the
1970s and seven observations per year were made during the 1980s (55 FR 36641-36647,
1990).

Following the 1990 listing of the pallid sturgeon as a Federally endangered species,
USFWS established the Pallid Sturgeon Recovery Plan. The goals of the plan are to
restore habitat by reconnecting rivers with side channels and backwaters, return river
flows to their natural hydrographs, and establish hatchery reproduction programs
(USFWS, 2001). As a result of the plan, during the 1990s approximately 10,000
hatchery-reared pallid sturgeons were released into the lower Missouri and middle
Mississippi Rivers (USFWS, 2000a). Biologists have also identified plans to trigger
spawning and rearing of young. For example, biologists have recommended that USACE
stimulate spawning in the stretch of the Missouri below Gavin’s Point Dam by adjusting
releases of the dam to include a spring water level rise and then reduce summer flow in
order to allow for better growing and feeding conditions for young pallid sturgeons
(USFWS, 2001).

Osage River Bridge 9 9/21/2004
Biological Assessment


Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalist), endangered pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus), endangered
pink mucket pearlymussel (Lampsilis abrupta), and the endangered scaleshell mussel (Leptodea
leptodon). In addition to federally listed species, the USFWS expressed concern regarding
impacts on any freshwater mussel beds that may be present within the project area and impacts
on lake and shovelnose sturgeon and paddlefish. The Missouri Department of Conservation has
identified the state-listed giant floater mussel (Pyganodon grandis) and black sandshell mussel
(Ligumia recta) as species that are known to occur in the Osage River near the project area.

During a site visit on January 14, 2003, the USFWS stated that the project area did not contain
suitable habitat for the Indiana bat and surveys would not be required. Therefore, the project
would have no effect on the Indiana bat and it is not included in the BA.

3.4.1 Bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

Bald eagles are known to exist for wintering and roosting purposes within the proposed Osage
River Bridge area, however, there are no known nests in the vicinity. Wintering and migrating
eagles are present in Missouri typically between November 15 and March 1. In order to
minimize the effect of the Project on bald eagles, tree-clearing activities would be conducted
between March 1 and November 15 to the extent possible. If the removal of trees is necessary
between November 15 and March 1, surveys will be required to determine if bald eagles are
present. Trees will be removed only as required for construction activities. If a bald eagle is
sited roosting or nesting in the Project vicinity construction would stop until the USFWS can be
contacted and appropriate actions will be taken based on USFWS consultation.

While some bald eagle habitat would be removed for construction, the amount of habitat
removed is an insignificant disturbance and would not adversely affect the bald eagle population.
Noise levels during construction may cause bald eagles to avoid the general area near the project
during construction, but eagles would likely return to the area once the sporadic and louder
noises of construction cease. The type and extent of predicted impacts on bald eagles are
considered insignificant effects and should not reach the scale where it adversely affects bald
eagles.

3.4.2 Pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus)

Pallid sturgeon are known to occur in the portion of the Osage River flowing through the
proposed Osage River Bridge. However, the channelization of the Missouri River, as well as
over-harvesting of the species, has greatly reduced the numbers of pallid sturgeon in the area.
The majority of the impacts on the pallid sturgeon would be temporary in nature and associated
only with pier construction. Over the long term, the scour areas located immediately upstream
ad downstream of the piers may provide small areas of pool habitat for pallid sturgeon to use for
wintering purposes. The type and extent of predicted impacts on pallid sturgeons are considered
insignificant effects and is not likely to adversely affect the pallid sturgeon.

Osage River Bridge 5 12/12/2007
Environmental Assessment


3
i

freshwater mussels, scaleshell requires a host fish during the early stages of development to
complete its life cycle. The scaleshell appears to utilize the freshwater drum (Aplodinotus
grunniens) as a host. In Missouri, the scaleshell is known from the Meramec, Bourbeuse, Big,
Gasconade, and Osage rivers.

Since freshwater mussels are sedentary, they can be particularly vulnerable to local impacts of
construction sites such as road improvements. Construction related impacts that could adversely
affect the pink mucket or scaleshell mussel include bank or channel disturbance, accidental spills
and runoff of contaminants; and increases in turbidity and suspended sediments. Additionally,
mussels can be removed from the water, buried, or crushed by machinery. If you suspect that the
proposed project may cause any of these effects, further consultation with this office may be
necessary. w

The Service is also interested in avoiding and minimizing impacts to other significant mussel
resources that may be present in the project vicinity. In-stream construction can have significant
impacts to mussel populations if the activity is located in or adjacent to habitat that supports a
large number of species and individuals.. Because mussels are sessile organisms and cannot
move away from disturbances, in-stream activities can destroy entire mussel beds by directly
burying or crushing mussels and/or altering habitat .

In addition to the pallid sturgeon, the Osage River is extremely important habitat for Lake and
shovelnose sturgeon and paddiefish. To maintain habitat quality for those species, we
recommend minimizing activities that would modify the river bottom or circulation/flow
patterns. If you have not already done so, please contact the Missouri Department of
Conservation (Planning Division, P.O. Box 180, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102-0180) for
information concerning State-listed rare and endangered species.

Should you have questions, or if we can be of any further assistance, please contact Ms. Jane
Ledwin at the address above, or by telephone at (573)234-2132, extension 109.

Sincerely,

Charles M. Scott
Field Supervisor
cc: MDC; Jefferson City, (Brian Canaday)

gAledwin\letters\UPRRbrdgeosageriv2004-116.doc


BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
FOR
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD
OSAGE RIVER CROSSING, RIVER MILE 5.49, NEAR THE TOWN OF OSAGE
CITY, MISSOURI, OSAGE AND COLE COUNTIES, MISSOURI

Prepared by: Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District (obr)
1222 Spruce Street
St. Louis, MO

Osage River Bridge ; 9/21/2004
Biological Assessment


1.1.3. Pallid Sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus)

The pallid sturgeon is believed to have occupied areas in the Missouri and Mississippi
river drainages since the late Cretaceous period. Within the Missouri River, known pallid
sturgeon habitat extends from central Montana to St. Louis (USFWS, 1995). The pallid
sturgeon is also suspected to be present in the Osage River. The range of the pallid
sturgeon is primarily limited to the mainstem Missouri and Mississippi Rivers, but pallid
sturgeons have been found in tributary mouths, over sandbars, along main channel
borders, and in deep holes. Small sturgeons have been captured in off-channel
backwaters. Little is known about pallid sturgeon use of the Osage River.

The pallid sturgeon was first recognized as a species in 1905 (USFWS, 2002). The pallid
sturgeon population was abundant prior to commercial over-harvesting and habitat
modification. An 1894 commercial harvest report indicates that 7,136 pounds of lake
sturgeon were caught in the Missouri River and 810 pounds of lake sturgeon were caught
in the Platte River. This data was compiled prior to the designation of the pallid sturgeon
as its own species. Consequently, it is believed that the pallid sturgeon was also included
in turn-of-the-century commercial harvest statistics for lake sturgeon. During this same
period, the eggs of the lake sturgeon and pallid sturgeon were harvested for caviar.
Because there were no harvest restrictions on these species, the populations were
exploited (NGPC, 1993).

The habitat supporting the pallid sturgeon was significantly modified in the 20" century,
particularly in the latter half of that century. The pallid sturgeon habitat encompasses
3,350 miles of riverine habitat in the Missouri and Mississippi rivers. Of this habitat,
approximately 51 percent has been channelized, 28 percent has been impounded, and the
remaining 21 percent is downstream of dams, which have altered the flow regimes,
temperature, and turbidity of the rivers (USFWS, 1998). These modifications have been
detrimental to the pallid sturgeon because they have restricted fish to limited flowing
tiver reaches, reduced food sources and the ability to obtain food, created physical
blockages that preclude normal migration patterns, and destroyed spawning areas (Duffy,
Berry, and Keenlyne, 1994).

The combination of over-harvesting and habitat modifications caused the population of
the pallid sturgeon to decline dramatically. This led to the species being Federally listed
as endangered in 1990 under the ESA. The listing of the species as endangered prompted
habitat conservation and recovery activities. USFWS’s objective for the pallid sturgeon
is for its population to be restored to a level in which they will be self-sufficient and no
longer need the protection of the ESA (NGPC, 1993).

1.1.3.1. Affected Environment

The analysis of potential effects of the Project on the pallid sturgeon focuses on the
Project Area including and surrounding the ROW for the build alternative, located 5.49
miles from the confluence of the Osage and Missouri rivers. This includes riverine
habitat that was historically prime habitat for the pallid sturgeon. Although conditions
along the Missouri and Osage Rivers have been modified and the habitat is no longer
ideal for the pallid sturgeon, the fish species is known to be present in areas such as this

Osage River Bridge 7 9/21/2004
Biological Assessment


=
S

rot We 4 Ho.$083B. 2
COLE COUNTY
ROAD AND BRIDGE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PLANNING
(573) 636-3614 5055 MONTICELLO ROAD (573) 636-2084
JEFFERSON CITY, MISSOURI 65109-8182
FAX (573) 636-8389 E-MAIL cyarnell@colecounty.org ww.colecounty.org/pw
April 7, 2004

Mr. John Denlinger, PE
HDR Engineering, Inc.
8404 Indian Hills Dr
Omaha, NE, 68114-4098

RE: UPRR Floodplain Development Permit

Mr. John Denlinger;

Please consider this a conditional approval for the Floodplain Development
Permit.

e [am unsure if there is a need for a COE 404 permit and a DNR 401 permit
for this type of structure. All Structures we bulld have this requirement and.
| assume c railroad structure will also have these same requirements. We
request coples of these for our files.

e We understand the phasing of construction and will allow the permit to
run through 2007. At that time the bridge must be under contract with a
completion date scheduled or the partially constructed structure must be
removed at the UPRR's expense.

Should you have any questions please contact this office at your convenience,

Res; lly,

CHRIS YARNELL, PE
Director

CC: file

F:\usars\cyarnell\CORRESP\O4\UPRR Floodplain.doc


or. 7. 2004 4:27PM Coie County Public Works No.4085 9. 3
FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT PERMIT/APPLICATION

Application No. Date:

JO THE ADMINISTRATOR: The undersigned hereby makes application fora permit to develop in a flosdplein. ‘The wait fo be performed, ineluding
Food provetion works, is ax described below and in attachments hereio, The undersigned agrees that all wuch work shall be in accordance with the

requirements of the Floodplein Management Ordinance and with all other applicable county/elty ordinances, federal programs, snd the laws and

bry seguletions of the Stote of Missouri. » 03/12/04
4 Union Pacific Railroad (Mark McCune) -
Gwmer or Agent Date Builder 7. Date
| 1416 Dodge St., Rm. 940 Omaha,NE 68179
Kadress Address . per
(402) 271-5194 “
j Phone Phone
SITE DATA
oy 1. ° Losation: NW. va; NE 1/4; Section _24 ; Township _44N + Range_LOW
Street Address
2, Type of Devalopment; Filling Greding Excavation ‘Minimum Improvement
Routine Maintensnce Substantial Iimprovement New Construction ___% * Other .
fy ct °: second nl b . hy

3. Deseription of Development:

“4
rd located 45' stream of existin ructure.

4, Promises: Strucrure Size f. By fR Aref Site
Principal Use Accessory Uses (storage, parking, 6) © ae
Pre-ImprovemenvAssessed Value of Structure $s

SqFt

5. Value of Improvement (fair marker) $
6. Property Located in a Designated FLOODWAY? Yes XL no
2 R TO THE ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT TO DEVELOP, THAT

IF ANSWERED YES, CERTIFICATION MUST BE PROVIDED PRIO)
THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL RESULT IN NO INCREASE IN-THE BASE (100-YEAR) FLOOD ELEVATIONS.

i 7. Property Located in s Designated Floodplain FRINGE? Yes No.
al §. _Elevotion of the 100-Yesr Flood (1D source) 545.0 (Cole Co. FIS) MSLINGVD-

9, Elevation of the Proposed Davelopment Site __— MSLINGVD
10, Local Ordinance Blsvatlon/Floodproofing Requitement ___{ ! hbeee BFE MSLINGVD

14, Other Floodplain Elevation Information (ID and describe source)

12, Other Permits Required? Comps of Engineer 404 Permit: Yes 7.7 No. Provi
y ‘State Department of Natural: Resources 40} Permit: Yes 2 No____ Provided ___
} Environmental Protection Agency NPDES Permit: Yes. Nou 4 Provided ——
|
{All Provisions of Ordinance Number «the “Floodplain Management Ordinancs" shall be in Compliance.
AEPROVALDENIAL ,,. {fo AtAached Con abtims
~ gh Z lA
2. Day of 129,

Aut fFicial

re Mack b.MeCrre Direeme Stature Detion
§ Print Name and Title

Print Name and Title

THIS PERMIT IS ISSUED WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE LOWEST FLOOR (INCLUDING BASEMENT FLOOR) OF ANY NEW OR
SUBSTANITALLY IMPROVED RESIDENTIAL BUILDING WILL BE ELEVATED FOOT/FEET ABOVE THE BASE FLOOD
ELEVATION. IF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS A NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDING, THIS PERMIT 1S ISSUED WITH THE CONDITION
‘THAT THE LOWEST FLOOR (INCLUDING BASEMENT) OF A NEW OR SUBSTANITALLY IMPROVED NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDING
WILL BE ELEVATED OR FLOODPROOFED FOOT/FEET ABOVE THE BASE FLOOD ELEVATION.

‘THIS PERMIT IS USED WITH THE CONDTION THAT THE DEVELOPER/OWNER WILL PROVIDE CERTIFICATION BY A REGISTERED
ENGINEER, ARCHITECT, OR LAND SURVEYOR OF THE “AS-BUILT" LOWEST FLOOR (INCLUDING BASEMENT) ELEVATION OF ANY
NEW OR SUBSTANTIALLY IMPROVED BUILDING COVERED BY THIS PERMIT,

(MISSOURD)
June 26, 2003


H

Ecological Specialists, Inc.

1417 Hoff Industrial Dr. « O'Fallon, MO 68366 _* Voice: 636.281.1982 * Fax: 636.281.0973

The gage height averaged 3ft on both days of the survey and therefore would be a minimal requirement
gage height for barge navigation.

If you have any questions feel free to contact me via phone or email (chelt@ecologicalspecialists.com).

Sincerely,
Ere Boop

Eric Belt
Malacologist



Impacts on the aquatic environment can be minimized if the following best management
practices for the river and the species are implemented into project design and
construction.

‘ 1. Channel modification or stream relocation should not occur unless conditions
of the Missouri Department of Natural Resources State Channel Modification
Guidelines are met.

7 2. Grade and seed disturbed areas as soon as possible to minimize erosion.
The Missouri Department of Conservation can provide seeding and planting
recommendations to enhance site conditions.

3. Disturbance to stream banks and riparian areas should be avoided.

4. Stream flows should not be interrupted. All temporary in channel fills that

a could impound water should be culverted with appropriately sized structures.
3 5. Avoid work in the channel between March 15 and June 15 to the best extent
possible.
6. Take ail necessary precautions to prevent petroleum products from entering
\ the stream.

4] Thank you for the opportunity to provide our comments pertaining to the bridge project.
! The Department would like the opportunity to review any revised project plans and may
provide additional comments during the formal 404/401 permitting process. Please feel

| free to contact me if you have any questions.

7 . Sincerely,

BRIAN D. CANADAY
POLICY COORDINATOR

Enclosures



APPENDIX 3
Biological Assessment


in the Missouri and Osage Rivers. Therefore, the pallid sturgeon is assumed present
within the Project Area.

1.1.3.2. Species Biology

The pallid sturgeon has a flattened shovel-shaped snout, bony plates (instead of scales)
running lengthwise from the dorsal fin to the tail fin (no plates are on the stomach), and a
long, slender reptile-like tail (USFWS, 1998; PRESP, 2003). The species has four
fringed chin barbells located at about one-third the distance between the mouth and snout.
The inner two barbells are about one-half of the length of the outer two barbells (NGPC,
1993; PRESP, 2003). The pallid sturgeon’s mouth is toothless and positioned far under
the snout for sucking small fish and other types of food from the river bottom (USFWS,
1995; USFWS, 1998). The back and sides of the pallid sturgeon are grayish-white and
the underside is white (USFWS, 1998; PRESP, 2003). The pallid sturgeon is one of the
largest fish species found in the Missouri-Mississippi drainage. Pallid sturgeons can
grow to 6 feet in length and weigh up to 85 pounds (55 FR 36641-36647, 1990; NGPC,
1993). They are also a long-lived species, with males living to at least 39 years of age
and females to at least 41 years of age; however, some individuals reach up to 50 years of
age (Ruelle and Keenlyne, 1993 as printed in Duffy, Berry, and Keenlyne, 1999;
USFWS, 1998).

The pallid sturgeon requires turbid, strong current riverine habitat with a firm sandy
substrate (Gilbraith et al., 1988 as printed in 55 FR 36641-36647, 1990; PRESP, 2003).
Pallid sturgeons seem to prefer deeper, slower, and more turbid water than other sturgeon
species. Pallid sturgeons are river-bottom dwellers and prefer a natural hydrograph
(surface water flow changing in response to seasons and precipitation events). These fish
also prefer a diversity of depths and flow rates developed by braided channels, sand bars,
sand flats, and gravel bars (USFWS, 1998; PRESP, 2003).

The male pallid sturgeon reaches sexual maturity at 533 to 584 millimeters in length and
between 5 to 7 years of age. Males spawn every 2 to 3 years. Spawning occurs over hard
surfaces such as sand or gravel beds. The female pallid sturgeon reaches sexual maturity
at 850 millimeters in length and between 7 to 15 years of age. The interval between
times of spawning is up to 10 years for females (Fogle, 1961 and Keenlyne and Jenkins,
1993 as printed in Duffy, Berry, and Keenlyne, 1994; USFWS, 1998). Little is known
about the spawning requirements for pallid sturgeon other than that spawning occurs
from March through July throughout the pallid sturgeon’s range, and begins in late May
or early April in the Lower Missouri River (USFWS, 2000c). According to current
understanding, pallid sturgeon spawn at the head of islands and larvae are transported to
the tail of islands or to eddy pools by currents (USFWS, 2003b). Flow, photoperiod,
water temperature, and substrate composition are also believed to serve as spawning cues
(Missouri River Basin Association, 2003). :

Osage River Bridge 8 9/21/2004
Biological Assessment


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Environmental Assessment

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION
11 Introduction... .........0.6... 00. cece eee renee eee
1.1.2 Description of Proposed Action............
1.1.3. Statement of Need for the Proposed Action ..
2.0 Alternatives Considered ...................0--
2.1 Evaluated Alternatives 2.0.0.0... 00000 c ec ccc cece eee n eee
2.1.1 No-Build, No Action 2.2.0... 00... c cece cee cece etter e teers
2.1.2 Construct Second-Track Bridge Upstream of Existing Bridge ..
2.1.3. Construct Second-Track Bridge Downstream of Existing Bridge
3.0 Summary of Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives ....
3.1. Community, Social and Economic .................0 0.0 c cece eee eee eee
3.2 Floodplain .......0.0.0 0... cee nent ene eee ne en ee neenee
3.3 Wetlands 2.0.0.0... cece een nnn rene ene en ees
3.4 Fish and Wildlife
3.4.1 Bald Eagles ..
3.4.2  Pallid Sturgeon. .
3.4.3. Mussels .....
3.4.4 Wildlife ..............
3.5 Prime and Unique Farmlands . .
3.6 Wild and Scenic River ......
3.7 Air Quality........... :
BC)
3.9 Water Quality 00.00.00... eect ene e nen ee nee
3.10 Navigation .
3.11 Parks, Historic and Cultural Properties, and Recreation ...................-
4.0 A Comparative Analysis of the Proposed Action and Alternatives...............
4.1 Preferred Alternative :
AAA, NoAction 0.0... cece ener n nee e eben een eee
4.1.2 Construct Second-Track Bridge Upstream of Existing Bridge..............
4.1.3 Construct Second-TrackBridge Downstream of Existing Bridge .
5.0 | Statement of Environmental Significance of the Proposed Project .... :
6.0 Agency Coordination ............. 0.0. ccc eect ene nner eee ees

Com MD DMA MY QIYUNANUUAUNAEEWWHWHWWWWWNNN

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1 Proposed Bridge Plans
APPENDIX 2 Agency Correspondence and Comments
APPENDIX 3 Biological Assessment


Property Owners List

Owners Name

Owners Address

(if different than Property)

Union Pacific Railroad Osage River Bridge MP 116.89 Project

Property Address

Stanley Rackers

3909 Shamrock Rd
Jefferson City, MO
65101

Sec 22, T44N, RLOW

Alva Lafever Jr

207 Highway HH
Tuscumbia, MO
65082

Sec 15, 16, 21, & 22,
T44N, RLOW

Paul & Virginia Bruemmer

9303 Osage Front St.
Jefferson City, MO
65101

Soda Popp

11718 Engineers Rd.
Jefferson City, MO
65101

Gerald & Linda Gensert 9209. Osage Front Street 9212 Osage Grand Ave.
Jefferson City, MO
65101

Current Resident 9210 Osage Grand Ave

Jefferson City, MO
65101

James Schaller

10012 Steamboat Run Rd.

Jefferson City, MO

9206 Osage Grand Ave.

65101
Current Resident 2015 Osage Walnut St
Jefferson City, MO
65101
Lee & Helen Stuice 2012 Osage Walnut St.
Jefferson City, MO
65101
Current Resident 2012 Osage Walnut St. 9108 Osage Grand Ave.
Jefferson City, MO
65101
Floyd & Diana Johnson 9006 Stage Coach Rd 2015 Osage Hickory St.
Jefferson City, MO
65101

Floyd & Diana Johnson

9006 Stage Coach Rd.
Jefferson City, MO
65101

2016 Osage Hickory

Page lof 3


!O0SAGE COUNTY EMA . FAX NO. 25738978379 May. 26 2804 19:19AM PZ

FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT PERMIT/APPLICATION
Application No. Date:

TO THE ADMINISTRATOR: ‘The undersigned hereby makes application for a permit tu develop in a floodplain. ‘The werk to be performed, including
flood pmccerian works, is is described below and ir atachments hereto. The undersigned agrees that sll auch wnck shall be ta wsecordance with the
eauirements of the Flocdplsin Management Ordinance and with all other applicable county/eity ordinances, federal progruins, und the laws and

feline ofthe Sate of Mou 03/12/ 9 4
Union Pacific Railroad (Mark McCune :
Owner or Agent Date Builder Date

1416 Dodge St.. Rm. 940 Omaha, NE 68179
Address

a ‘Address
a (402) 271-5194
Phone Phone
4 :
ry SITE DATA
} vs : :
1. Location: __NW a; ___NE 4; Scetion __ 21 ; Township _ 44N + Range__10W
3 Street Address
dl 2. Type of Development: Filling Grading Bxeavation Minimum Improvement
Routine Maintenance ‘Substantial Improvement ‘New Construction x Other

3. Desoription of Development: Construction of a second mainline bridge, 1,235 ft. in length,
located 45' downstream of existing structure.

4. Promises: Structure Size ft By A Area of Site Sqtt

Principal Use : Accessory Uses (storage, parking, om.)
5. Value of Improvement (fair market) $ Pre-lmprovemenv/Assessed Value of Structure $
6 Propeny Located in a Designated FLUUDWAY? Yes _X No

IF ANSWERED YES, CERTIFICATION MUST BE PROVIDED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT TO DEVELOP, THAT
THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL RKSULT !N NO INCREASE IN THE BASE. (100-YEAR) FLOOD ELEVATIONS.

Property Located in & Designated Floodplain FRINGE? Yes No
8. Vtevation of the 100-Year Flood (1D souresy __545-3 (Osage Co. FIS) MSUNGvD
9, Blevatian uf the Proposed evelopment Site MSLINGVD
s 10. Local Ordinanee Elevation/Floadproafing Requirement MSLINGVD

J, Other Floodplain Elevadon Information (ID and describe source)

12 Other Permits Required? Corps of Engincer 404 Permit: Yes. No Provided
‘State Departnent of Nanural Resources 402 Permit: Yes _____ No Provided
Environmental Protoction Agency NPDES Permit: Yes No. Provided

All Provisions of Ordinance Number »the “I loodplain Management Ordinance”, shall he In Compliance, ‘

PERMIT APPROVAL/DENIAI.

Digs and SAS oi dw Day of MAY 0D Y
PEC ) ved, Spo

Sighature of Developer/Owner Authorizing Official

‘flac Ll Cae Phoestor Stasctuses Dean Rransy_<y. SR ope EP Supsrupsale
Print Name and Title Print Name snd Tide

THIS PERMIT {S ISSUED WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE LOWEST FLOOR (INCLUDING BASEMENT FLOOR) OF ANY NEW OR
SUBSTANITALLY IMPROVED RESIDENTIAL BUILDING WILL BE ELEVATED SOOT/FEET ABOVE THE BASE FLOOD
| ELEVATION. Lf THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 1S A NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDING- THR Pemnarr IS ISSUED WITH ‘THE CONDITION

Vins L¢ FLOOR (INCLUDING BASEMENT) OF A NEW OR SUBSYANITALLY IMPROVED NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDING
WILL UE ELEVATED OR FLOODPROOFED FOOT/FERT AROVE THE BASE FLOOD ELEVATION.

THIS PERMIT IS USED WITH Tit CONDTION THAT THE DEVELOPER/OWNER WILL PROVIDE CERTIFICATION BY A REGISTERED
| ENGINEER. ARCHITECT, OR LAND SURVEYOK OF THE “AS-BUILT” LOWEST FLOOR (INCLUDING BASEMENT) ELEVATION OF ANY
Hy NEW OR SUBSTANTIALLY IMPROVED BUTL.DING COVERED BY THIS PRMIT.

(MISSOURI)
June 26, 2003



at Osage River Mile 5.49; the mouth of the Osage River is at Missouri River Mile 130.
The proposed substructures to support the bridge would be drilled shaft foundations with
cast-in-place concrete columns and caps. Two channels would be dredged prior to
emplacement of the piers to allow construction access in the Osage River. The flow (e.g.
deposition, scouring, etc.) of the Osage River would be temporarily altered by
construction activities but permanent alterations resulting from the placement of the piers
in the river would be insignificant.

The long-term impact of the piers on the pallid sturgeon would be minimal because the
pallid sturgeons may be migrating through the area of the Project to reach the confluence
with the Missouri River or to swim upstream to spawn. The water flow modifications
would be minor, and the piers would not be located in an area of suitable habitat.

Indirect Effects

Some tree and vegetation removal would be required within the ROW of the new track
realignment to accommodate construction of the new bridge. The clearing of vegetation
could result in a short-term increase in sedimentation and runoff resulting from the
exposed ground. This impact should be minimized by using silt fencing where needed as
well as seeding cleared ground as quickly as possible to secure the soil and ‘reduce the
potential for sedimentation and runoff. Because the pallid sturgeon is adapted to living
close to the bottom of large, silty rivers, temporary increases in turbidity and
sedimentation would be insignificant effects.

Activities that are particularly noisy have been identified as of concern for the pallid
sturgeon. Pier construction would be completed using permanently cased drilled shaft.
Pile driving or the use of explosives is not planned.

Following construction of the proposed bridge and track realignment, development is not
likely to occur along the new track realignment ROW.

Cumulative Effects

Overall, the effects on the pallid sturgeon would be minimal and potentially beneficial in
the long-term. After construction is completed, the dredged areas on the Osage River
would remain in place and would have the potential to serve as wintering areas for the
pallid sturgeon that were not previously available —

Incidental Take

Construction of the UPRR Osage River Bridge 116.89 is not likely to result in an
incidental take of pallid sturgeons. However, pallid sturgeons may avoid the area
because of turbidity changes and sediment disturbance during construction. Pallid
sturgeon would likely remain upstream or downstream of the new bridge during
construction.

Osage River Bridge il 9/21/2004
Biological Assessment


g00z 4aquiaceg :e}eq

SERIO SOE @ | $19 Aunog #09 ‘SiaSW :e01nos

3E3 i 91419vd NOINN ajeos
avouwtiva 91419vd NOIND
AG NOLLVONIddv —————— el
S3ILNNO9 3109/39vS0 ye24 008 0 008
TUNOSSIN ‘ALID FOWSO YVAN
€°¢ STN BSAy
39aINa YAM FOVSO GasOdONd



The BA correctly notes that the pallid sturgeon likely occur in and around the project
area. Contrary to the BA, however, we cannot say at this time that the project area does
not contain spawning or nursery habitat for the pallid. In fact, the mouths of major
tributaries are known as important areas for sturgeon. However, given the limited
temporal scope of the project and the commitment to return the river to pre-construction
contours, the proposed work is not likely to adversely affect the pallid sturgeon.

Finally, the Service. greatly appreciates the applicant’s efforts to avoid effects to federally
listed mussels by conducting mussel and habitat surveys of the projects area, and
developing %in access route that would minimize disturbance to the river bottom. Those
surveys indicate that the project area has marginal mussel habitat because of substrate
instability. In addition, it is likely that the existing mussel resources may be regularly
resupplied from upstream populations.

Based on the information in the BA, the Service concurs with your determination that the
proposed bridge construction on the Osage River is not likely to adversely affect-any
federally listed species. If the scope or location of the project changes, please reinitiate
consultation with this office via a telephone call. The Service will continue to consult on
the Boonville portion of the project as the permitting process progresses.

Thank you for you coordination throughout the planning process. Please contact Ms.
Jane Ledwin (573/234-2132, extension 109) if we can be of further assistance.

Charles M. Scott
Field Supervisor

ce: USACE, Jefferson City, MO (Pointer)
MDC, Jefferson City, MO (Canaday)
MDNR, Jefferson City, MO (Boos)

G:\Ledwin\Letters\uscguprrltr20040580.doc


or disappear the other would accept a new partner. Courtship begins about a month
before egg laying. The courtship occurs as early as September in the south and as late as
May in the north. Clutch size ranges from one to three eggs. The nesting period lasts
about 6 months, with incubation lasting approximately 35 days and fledging taking place
at 11 to 12 weeks of age. Parental care may extend 4 to 11 weeks after fledging. The
fledgling bald eagle is mostly dark brown with white underwing linings. The
characteristic white head and tail are not apparent until the bald eagle matures, occurring
at 4 to 5 years of age (64 FR 36454-36464, 1999).

1.1.2.3 Current Condition of Species/Critical Habitat

Habitat supporting the bald eagle is characterized by aquatic ecosystems. As discussed in
Section 4.5.2.2, the bald eagle must have access to lakes, reservoirs, major rivers, and
selected seacoast habitats that have an abundant source of food, including fish, seagulls,
and carrion, and that have adjacent riparian areas with large, mature trees suitable for
nesting and roosting. There have been no critical habitat designations for the bald eagle.
Consequently, none of the land within the Study Area is considered critical habitat.

Rangewide

In response to the 1978 listing of the bald eagle as threatened in Michigan, Minnesota,
Wisconsin, Washington, and Oregon, and endangered throughout the remainder of the
lower 48 states, USFWS established a recovery plan for the species. The lower 48 states
were divided into five recovery regions. Within each recovery region, a team of experts
on the bald eagle and the ecosystems in which they frequent was established. Each team
developed a recovery plan for its region and then coordinated with the teams from other
recovery regions to exchange information and data.

Since implementation of the plans developed by each recovery region, the population
growth of the bald eagle has exceeded most of the designated goals. Between 1974 and
1994, the number of occupied breeding areas increased by 462 percent. This recovery
was widespread throughout the lower 48 states. For example, in 1984 there were

13 states that did not report nesting bald eagles. By 1998, all but two of the lower 48
states had nesting pairs. As noted previously, the success of the recovery programs led to
the reclassification of the bald eagle in 1995 to threatened throughout the lower 48 states
and then to the proposal for delisting the species in 1999 (64 FR 36454-36464, 1999).

Regional Area and Study Area

The state of Missouri is part of the Northern States Recovery Region under the USFWS
bald eagle recovery program. In order for delisting to occur, the goals set for this region.
were for 1,200 occupied breeding areas to exist in at least 16 states, with an average
annual productivity of at least 1.0 young per occupied nest. These goals were reached in
1991, with 1,349 occupied breeding nests existing in over 20 states and an estimated
average productivity of greater than 1.0. In 1998, the number of occupied breeding nests
exceeded 2,204 (64 FR 36454-36464, 1999).

The Missouri bald eagle population consists of primarily those migrating through the
state as well as wintering in the state. Nesting does occur in Missouri but is uncommon.
Bald eagles are most commonly found in Missouri near rivers and reservoirs with open

Osage River Bridge 4 9/21/2004
Biological Assessment


‘so0z #990390 +99¢0) € 40 7 4045} hahaa

YEH supkeNona x wl

QVONTIVY 9141ovd NOINN

—ars |

2
5

STW BSA ry
BOOINE USAIN 3OvSO Gasodoud

8 N3H935 a AN3995
2ywsig Geuits

ONTASIXa 3 ONTASEXS &

2 1N3M035,

@ Nanas
Feud
ONTESIXS

ToS 282

42902 = Sualg

cao) BALYN HOTH ABV

SS an 2 ae = STL

ed awe
y inanoas | 6-28
. v aNanaas
2s uatd 0350d0ud 2 cn uate’ oteaeaS
a
La
a
i EA
MATA NVid (2 =
2 Be
5 a
B 1N3H995 @ ananoas > ananoas © ANsn93§ N30 3 iNawoas
reanig Bate geld reese] a pons Te se os8Beed
OnTUSi} 3 ontuging & onTastxa & ONTLSIXS & ont ASIXS 3
2 IN3N93S 3 ANSNO3S
§_LNBNO3S ws3id > OL Had a @_LNINDIS: Fab-.¥Or =
7 MSP .c8d 229-50! wild 3 OL wale d)
¥ ofS ~ B58
' \ranweo woravaravn f Rin hee
ex este ONtUSXa

pe ee ee
SEDI eT Sie Pe Tes

et

RSet
a Ea TN Wi hoe De

[A

in ia) 2 Bue RPP 2 PSS Te = Ba BOSSES a
or aE suse |
N spo vos SES oa Fo sees aan
< 5 ANaNDRS ‘azsoadud
y fe Uile casouote 4 le wala ass0d0Hs 3
BAS
az



U. S. Coast Guard
Environmental Assessment

for the:
Union Pacific Railroad

Osage River Bridge

Mile 5.49, Near Osage City,
Between Cole and Osage Counties, Missouri

Prepared by:
Eighth Coast Guard District (dwb)
1222 Spruce Street
St. Louis, MO 63103-2832

December 12, 2007



Bob Halden, Governor » Stephen M. Mahfood, Director

T OF NATURAL RESOURCES

March 24, 2004

Mr. Michael Madson

HDR Engineering, Inc.

6190 Golden Hills Drive
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416-1567

wwww.dar.me.gov

RECEIVED*".

APR 9 2004
HDR Engineering, Inc.

® ‘ Re: SHPO Project Number: 0091-08-04 - Proposed new bridge across Osage River at mile 5.3 in Cole and Osage

. Counties .

Dear Mr. Madson:

CFR Part 800, which require identification and evaluation of historic properties,

no historic properties affected by the project.

office for fisrther review and comment.

telephone call, please follow up in writing for our fil

Sincerely,

STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE

Vlad. Co 7 ei

Mark A. Miles
Director and Deputy State.
Historic Preservation Officer

MAM:bv
c: Tallgrass Historians L.C.

Integrity and excellence in all we do

i+
Rerpeled Paper

‘Thank you for submitting information concerning the above-referenced project for our review pursuant to Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act (P.L. 89-665, as amended) and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulation 36

After reviewing the information provided we find the report to be adequate. We concur noné of the archaeological sites located
in the Area of Potential Effects are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. We also concur there will be

Please be advised that, if the project area is increased, cultural materials are encountered during construction or adjacent areas
that may contain significant cultural resources may be adversely impacted, appropriate information must be provided to this

If you have any questions please write or call Brant Volliaan at (573) 526-1680 or State Historic Preservation Office, P.O. Box
176, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102 and refer to SHPO-Project Number: 001-OS-04, If the information is provided via

Missouri
Department of



ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions »

February 13, 2004

7 Keith Davis
' Natural Resource Conservation Service ~ -
‘ Area Office

1911 Boggs Creek Road

Jefferson City, Missouri 65101

Dear Mr. Davis:

Thank you for your Prompt response regarding my request for a farmland conversion impact rating for the Osage
River Bridge Milepost 116.89 Project. ‘As requested, I have attached a completed copy of the CPA-106 form for’

your records.

wa If you require any additional information or have any questions Concerning this request please contact me at
(402) 399-1457. .

Sincerely,
HDR ENGINEERING, INC.

Kelly J. Farrell
Environmental Scieitist .

Enclosure ;
cc: Cheney - UPRR.
Teig - HDR
“+. File

£8404 indian Hills Drive Phone: 4402} 399-1000
Omaha, NE 68114-4098 Fax: (402) 299-1238
vow lideine.com

HDR Engineering, Inc.



U.S. COAST GUARD
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
FOR

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD
OSAGE RIVER CROSSING, MILE 5.49, AT THE TOWN OF OSAGE CITY,
OSAGE/COLE COUNTIES, MISSOURI

This action has been thoroughly reviewed by the USCG and it has been determined, by the
undersigned, that this project will have no significant effect on the human environment.

This finding of no significant impact is based on the attached USCG prepared environmental
assessment dated December 12, 2007 which has been determined to adequately and accurately
discuss the environmental issues and impacts of the proposed action and provides sufficient
evidence and analysis for determining that an environmental impact statement is not required.

4 af 3 L200 od Daf CLL a Bridge Management Specialist

Date David A. Orzechowski Title/Position
Environmental Reviewer

Ihave considered the information contained in the EA, which is the basis for this FONSI. Based
on the information in the EA and this FONSI document, I agree that the proposed action as
described above, and in the EA, will have no significant impact on the environment.

\2/ \Bio> “Yoo. Bridge Administrator

Date Roger K. Wiebusch Title/Position
Responsible Official



pooz eune :e7eq 140 | euS a ayoou 3 YO avowlva @ 8661 400g Piet AjunoD aBeso ‘S19 Ayunog 2/00 ‘SIGSW :eun0S
GVOUTIVE JIdIDVd NOINN wa o1atovd NOINN 919 ——,
AG NOLLVOlIddv - ee
ALNNOD AVMVTIVS 324 00 0 008

RINOSSIW ‘ALID JOVSO NVAN
QSL GNV PSE SATIN BSA
LUNOSSIW N3IML3E 3LIS Tvsodsia
Twidalyw 3907ud0 aasodoud

Asepunog jequed
puabe]

HR YTOR :
PRETO aga oe
SE



US. Environmental Protection Agency
Water, Wetlands, and Pesticides Division
901 North 5th Street
Kansas City, KS 66101
Telephone: 913/551-7307

USS, Fish and Wildlife Service
Ecological Services Field Office
608 E. Cherry Street, Room 200

Columbia, MO 65201
Telephone: 573/876-1911

Disclaimer

These Best Management Practices were prepared
by the Missouri Department of Conservation with
assistance from other state agencies, contractors,
and others to provide guidance to those people
who wish to voluntarily act to protect wildlife and
habitat. Compliance with Best Management ~"-
Practices is not required by the Missouri wildlife
and forestry law nor by any regulation of the
Missouri Conservation Commission. Other
federal, state or local laws may affect construction
practices.

3/2000


, 3 3 ‘ ‘ONI ‘SLSI'TVIOddS
“LINOSSITAT ‘ANID O9¥SC IvoU “IAATY ades_Q ay] uO ware ADAINS PIUOTU,
r t TA SATO. ‘O Te ‘© 24 Pruoryy TWIIDO1TOIR

sialdpesodoig (gj
sield Bunsxg

eery Apnis pluoiun pesodoig
Aemesneg pesodoig EZ SAI] “ON
puehe7


Management Recommendations for Construction Projects Affecting Missouri Streams and Rivers

MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION

“Introduction

The streams and rivers of Missouri support a wide
and diverse community of wildlife that includes
many species of mammals, birds, fishes, mussels,
crayfish, and insects. The continued diversity and
health of this community is dependent upon how
well Missourians manage and protect this resource.
While water quality is essential, maintaining a
diverse array of habitat features also is essential for
aquatic wildlife to persist. Since implementation of
the Clean Water Act, point source pollution has been
greatly reduced, but polluted and sediment-laden
runoff (non-point source) from rural and urban
development is still a serious problem.

‘There are management practices that can be
implemented to prevent degradation of our streams
and rivers. By adapting these best management
practices we can prevent the loss of species diversity
and maintain the quality of our lives as well.
Preventative measures may require extra effort
initially, but they provide long-term dividends by
eliminating costly damage resulting from poor
management practices.

Access and Staging Area
Management Recommendations
Staging areas are those short- or long-term sites
within a construction or development area where
most equipment and materials are stored. These
areas often are accessed frequently; and when fuel
and oil are stored here, the potential for runoff and
erosion in these areas may be high.
++ Erosion and sediment controls should be installed
and maintained to prevent discharge from the site.
++ Staging areas for crew, equipment, and materials
should be established well away from streams and
tivers or highly erodible soils.
~ Stationary fuel and oil storage containers should
remain within a staging area or another confined
area to avoid accidental spills into the stream
systems.
-» Excess concrete and wash water from trucks and
other concrete mixing equipment should be
disposed of where this material cannot enter the
stream systems.
++ If temporary roadways must be built, ensure that
roadways are of low gradient with sufficient roadbed
nd storm water runoff drains and outlets.
<ontainment basins, silt fences, filter strips, etc. should
be included for retention of storm water runoff for
teducing sediment introduction into natural waterways.

+ Avoid stream crossings. If unavoidable, temporary
crossings should be used. Temporary crossings
should not restrict or interrupt natural stream flow.
If temporary in-channel fill is necessary, culverts of
sufficient size should be employéd.to avoid water
impoundment and allow for fish passage.

Riparian Corridor Management
Recommendations

The riparian corridor is the vegetation adjacent to a
stream or river. This area is critical to the health and
quality of the aquatic environment because of its
ability to slow and reduce sediment and chemical
runoff into the stream or river channel. A riparian
corridor with a minimum width of 100 feet from the
edge of the stream or river should be maintained
along both sides of streams and rivers.

+ Limit clearing of vegetation, including both
standing and downed timber, to that which is
absolutely necessary for construction purposes.

+> Heavy equipment use within the riparian corridor
should be restricted to minimize vegetation
destruction and compaction of soils. Flagging or
fencing areas that are not to be disturbed is helpful
in alerting construction personnel.

+> General application of pesticides, herbicides, or
fertilizers within the riparian corridor should be
prohibited to avoid water contamination due to over-
spray or runoff, Fertilizer use or spot application of

- pesticides and herbicides is acceptable if appropriate

non-restricted chemicals are used.

-> Riparian areas located dgwn slope of construction
zones should be physically screened with sediment
controls, such as silt fences or filter strips. Sediment
controls should be monitored after rain and
maintained for the duration of the project.

«+ All riparian corridors disturbed by the project
should be revegetated immediately following or
concurrent with project implementation.
Appropriate native bottomland or riparian trees,
shrubs, and grasses should be planted to ensure
long-term stability in areas where the soil erosion
threat is not critical. Annual non-native grasses such
as rye or wheat may be planted in conjunction with
native species to provide short-term erosion control.
Areas judged to be subject to immediate soil loss due
to steep slopes or other factors causing critical
erosion conditions may be planted with non-native
mixtures to assure rapid establishment and erosion
control.


Missouri Department of Conservation
Headquarters
(Brian Canaday)

Cole County — Emergency Management Agency
Floodplain Development Permit
(Chris Yarnell)

Osage County — Emergency Management Agency
Floodplain Development Permit
(Bradley Strope)

Osage River Bridge 10 12/12/2007
Environmental Assessment


Incidental Take

Construction of the UPRR Osage River Bridge is not likely to result in an incidental take!
of bald eagles. However, bald eagles that roost in the area near the ROW may be
disturbed by the noise caused by the construction of the new bridge. These bald eagles
would likely relocate upstream or downstream of the new bridge during construction.
The Project would result in the loss of minimal habitat through the clearing of the ROW
to accommodate construction of the new bridge and temporary access roads, but plentiful
habitat is available upstream and downstream of the Study Area.

1.1.2.5. Conservation Measures

Impacts on bald eagles should be minimized through construction timing. Wintering and
migrating eagles are present in Missouri typically between November 15 and March 1.
In order to minimize the effect of the Project on bald eagles, tree-clearing activities
would be conducted between March 1 and November 15 to the extent possible. If the
removal of trees is necessary between November 15 and March 1, surveys would be
required to determine if bald eagles are present. Trees would be removed only as
required for construction activities.

If a bald eagle is sited roosting or nesting in the Project vicinity construction would stop
until the USFWS can be contacted and appropriate actions would be taken based on
USFWS consultation.

With the measures described above, the Project may affect, but is not likely to adversely
affect bald eagles.

1.1.2.6. Conclusion

Bald eagles are known to use the Study Area for wintering and roosting purposes. There
are no known nests in the Study Area. The Project would result in some lost habitat as
weil as temporarily increased noise levels in the area. In addition, there would be loss of
some wetland areas. These impacts are not expected to be of a magnitude that would
result in the incidental take of any bald eagles.

1.1.2.7. Determination of Effects (Finding)

The Project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect bald eagles in the Study Area.
While some bald eagle habitat would be removed for construction, the amount of habitat
removed is an insignificant disturbance and would not adversely affect the bald eagle
population. Noise levels during construction may cause bald eagles to avoid the general
area near the Project during construction, but eagles would likely return to the area once
the sporadic and louder noises of construction cease. The type and extent of predicted
impacts on bald eagles are considered insignificant effects and should not reach the scale
where a take would occur.

* An incidental take is defined in 50 CFR §402.02 as “takings {of listed fish or wildlife species] that result
from, but are not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity conducted by the Federal agency
or applicant.”

Osage River Bridge 6 9/21/2004
Biological Assessment


Union Pacific Railroad Dredged Material Disposal Site
Between Missouri River Mile 138.4 and 138.6
Project Property Owners List

Owners Name

Owners Address Property Address
(if different than Property)

Gary W. Vandelicht

3610 Buttonwood DR Ste 200 Sec 29, T44N, RLOW
Columbia, Missouri 56203

Capital Sand Co. Inc,

700 Mokane Road Sec 29, T44N, RLOW
Jefferson City, Missouri 65101

James Edward and Anna Marie Knaebel
and Edward James Knaebel

5901 Algoa Road Sec 24, T44N, RLIW
Jefferson City, MO 65101

OCCT, Inc.

3200 County Road 257 Sec 29, T44N, RLOW
Fulton, Missouri 65251

Page 1 of 1


cea

3
?

Thank you for your coordination and cooperation regarding the mussel surveys. If your have
questions regarding our comments, please contact Jane Ledwin (573/234-2132, extension 109).

Sincerely,

Charles M. Scott
Field Supervisor
ce: USCG, St, Louis, MO (Knutson)

MDC, Jefferson City, MO (Canaday)
USACE, Jefferson City, MO (Pointer)

G:\ledwin\letters\200401 16.uprr.nomsls.doc


oe ee

|
j

avoUIVY S14tovd NOINA
AG NOLLVSNddy
SALLNNOD 3109/39¥SO
NINOSSIA ‘ALIS FOVSO YVAN
6b's STW NEARS
aoalua HANI 3OVSO aasodoud

‘on tomeomawt

avouiw
‘O141Dvd NOINA,

a)

dey hay

EEE

wa

ual

RCS

alg

SojBUesBEND OHY 1029 08007 pue AiD obeso “dey axydesBodoL 5°2 SOSN :922NeS,

3094 000

000¢